Leviticul 21
1 Domnul a zis lui Moise: ,,Vorbeşte preoţilor, fiilor lui Aaron, şi spune-le: ,Un preot să nu se atingă de un mort din poporul său, ca să nu se facă necurat;
2 afară de rudele lui cele mai deaproape, de mama lui, de tatăl lui, de fiul lui, de fratele lui,
3 şi de soru-sa care-i încă fecioară, stă lângă el şi nu este măritată, afară de aceştia, să nu se atingă de niciun alt mort.
4 Ca unul care este fruntaş în poporul lui, să nu se facă necurat, atingându-se de un mort.
5 Preoţii să nu-şi facă un loc pleşuv în cap, pentru un mort, să nu-şi radă colţurile bărbii, şi să nu-şi facă tăieturi în carne.
6 Să fie sfinţi pentru Dumnezeul lor, şi să nu necinstească Numele Dumnezeului lor; căci ei aduc Domnului jertfele mistuite de foc, mâncarea Dumnezeului lor: de aceea să fie sfinţi.
7 Să nu-şi ia de nevastă o curvă sau o spurcată, nici o femeie lăsată de bărbatul ei, căci ei sânt sfinţi pentru Dumnezeul lor.
8 Să-l socoteşti ca sfânt, căci el aduce mâncarea Dumnezeului tău; el să fie sfânt pentru tine, căci Eu sânt sfânt, Eu, Domnul, care vă sfinţesc.
9 Dacă fata unui preot se necinsteşte curvind, necinsteşte pe tatăl ei: să fie arsă în foc.
10 Preotul care este mare preot între fraţii lui, pe capul căruia a fost turnat untdelemnul pentru ungere, şi care a fost închinat în slujba Domnului şi îmbrăcat în veşminte sfinţite, să nu-şi descopere capul, şi să nu-şi sfîşie veşmintele.
11 Să nu se ducă la niciun mort; să nu se facă necurat, şi să nu se atingă nici chiar de tatăl său sau de mama sa.
12 Să nu iasă din sfântul locaş, şi să nu necinstească sfântul locaş al Dumnezeului său; căci untdelemnul ungerii Dumnezeului său este o cunună pe el. Eu sânt Domnul.
13 Femeia pe care o va lua el de nevastă, să fie fecioară.
14 Să nu ia nici o văduvă, nici o femeie despărţită de bărbat, nici o femeie spurcată sau curvă; ci femeia pe care o va lua de nevastă din poporul său, să fie fecioară.
15 Să nu-şi necinstească sămânţa în poporul lui; căci Eu sânt Domnul, care-l sfinţesc.``
16 Domnul a vorbit lui Moise, şi a zis:
17 ,,Vorbeşte lui Aaron, şi spune-i: ,Niciun om din neamul tău şi din urmaşii tăi care va avea o meteahnă trupească, să nu se apropie ca să aducă mâncarea Dumnezeului lui.
18 Niciun om care va avea o meteahnă trupească nu va putea să se apropie: şi anume nici un om orb, şchiop, cu nasul cârn sau cu un mădular mai lung;
19 nici un om cu piciorul frânt sau cu mâna frântă;
20 nici un om ghebos sau pipernicit, cu albeaţă în ochi, care are râie, pecingine sau boşit.
21 Niciun om din neamul preotului Aaron, care va avea vreo meteahnă trupească, să nu se apropie ca să aducă Domnului jertfele mistuite de foc; are o meteahnă trupească: să nu se apropie ca să aducă mâncarea Dumnezeului lui.
22 Din mâncarea Dumnezeului lui, fie lucruri prea sfinte, fie lucruri sfinte, va putea să mănânce.
23 Dar să nu se ducă la perdeaua dinlăuntru, şi să nu se apropie de altar, căci are o meteahnă trupească; să nu-Mi necinstească locaşurile Mele cele sfinte, căci Eu sânt Domnul, care îi sfinţesc.``
24 Astfel a vorbit Moise lui Aaron şi fiilor săi, şi tuturor copiilor lui Israel.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":9208,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Deformity","title_en":"Deformity","content_ro":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","summary_en":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22788,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23064,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Leviticus","title_en":"Book of Leviticus","content_ro":"<h3>LEVITICUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Leviticus was not put into writing as soon as it was revealed, but there is little to commend the common critical view that it was composed nearly a thousand years after Moses. The spelling and grammar of Leviticus was, like other books of the OT, revised from time to time to make it understandable to later generations of Jewish readers, but that does not mean the essential content of the book was modified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>God revealed some of the laws in Leviticus by speaking to Moses from the tent of meeting, or tabernacle (Lv 1:1). Other laws were revealed on Mt Sinai (26:46). Such statements show that Moses learned the contents of Leviticus after the tabernacle had been built but before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. This fits in with Exodus 40:17, which says that the tabernacle was erected exactly a year after the Israelites left Egypt. They then spent another month at Sinai, during which time the laws in Leviticus were given to Moses. Then one month later (Nm 1:1) Moses was commanded to prepare the people to leave Sinai to conquer the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to give an exact date for the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Dates at the end of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> or early in the 13th century are put forward by different scholars. Whichever view is adopted, the origin of Leviticus must be one year later than the exodus. But certainty about the absolute date of Leviticus is unimportant so long as the religious setting of the book is understood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>About 400 years before the exodus, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be very numerous and live in the land of Canaan. The family of Abraham multiplied, but as a result of famine they had to go and live in Egypt. Afraid of the Israelites, the rulers of Egypt turned them into slaves.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells how God, acting through Moses, brought the Israelites out of Egypt in a miraculous way. Moses led them to Mt Sinai, where God appeared in fire and smoke on the top of the mountain. Moses went up the mountain, and there God gave him the Ten Commandments and explained various laws. Through these acts God showed that he had chosen the nation of Israel to be his special holy people, different from all the other nations because they would show God’s character through their behavior (cf. Ex 19:5-6).<\/p>\n\n<p>God’s revelation at Sinai was unique and unrepeatable. But he disclosed to Moses that he wanted to live among the people of Israel permanently. They were told to build a portable royal palace that would be suitable for the divine King of kings. The building of this portable palace, traditionally called the tabernacle, is described in Exodus 35–40. When it was completed, the fire and cloud that had been seen on Mt Sinai appeared over the tabernacle as a sign that God was now dwelling in it (Ex 40:34-38).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus also tells how Moses was told to appoint his brother, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons to serve in the tabernacle as priests (Ex 28–29). Unfortunately, before the Israelites even began to build the tabernacle, they made a golden calf under Aaron’s leadership and started to worship it instead. The people were spared only as a result of Moses’ prayers. The book of Exodus therefore leaves the reader in suspense. The tabernacle has been built, but no one knows how to worship God in it. Though Aaron and his family are alive, we are left wondering whether they will still be allowed to lead the worship of God after the idolatry of the golden calf. The book of Leviticus answers this question.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments explain briefly and simply how God expects his people to behave. The first four commandments explain our duty toward our neighbor. The book of Leviticus follows a similar scheme. Chapters 1–17 show how God wanted Israel to worship him, while chapters 18–27 are mainly concerned with how people should behave toward each other. Whereas the Ten Commandments are general and can be applied quite easily to every society, the book of Leviticus is much more detailed and specifically geared to the special circumstances of ancient Israel. If modern readers are to profit from reading Leviticus, they must look behind the specific regulations to the underlying religious principles that do not change—in other words, to the theology of Leviticus.<\/p>\n<p>Four themes are very important in the theology of Leviticus: (1) the presence of God, (2) holiness, (3) sacrifice, and (4) the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>The Presence of God<\/h5>\n<p>God is always present with Israel in a real way. Sometimes his presence becomes visible in fire and smoke. But even when there is no miraculous sign, God is present. He is especially near when people worship him and offer sacrifice. The many animal sacrifices mentioned in the book are all brought to the Lord. When the animals are burnt, God is pleased with the smell (1:9). The priests who offer the sacrifices must be especially careful since they come closer to God than other people do. If they are careless in their duties and break God’s commands, they may die (10:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>God is present not just in worship but in all the ordinary duties of life. The recurring refrain of the later chapters, “I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, am your God” (18:2; 19:3), reminds the Israelites that every aspect of their life—religion (chs 21–24), sex (chs 18, 20), and relations with neighbors (chs 19, 25)—matters to God. The behavior of every Israelite must mirror that of God himself (20:7). The fear of God should prompt persons to help the blind, the deaf, the elderly, and the poor. Though such people may have no redress against unfair treatment, God cares about what happens to them (19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43).<\/p>\n<h5>Holiness<\/h5>\n<p>“You must be holy because I am holy” (11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26) could be termed the motto of Leviticus. “Holy,” “clean,” and “unclean” are common words in this book. God is the supremely holy person in the Bible, and holiness is the distinctive feature of his character. But earthly creatures can become holy too. To become holy, a person must be chosen by God and undergo the correct ceremony. Thus, at Sinai all Israel became a holy nation (Ex 19:6). Leviticus 8–9 explains how Aaron and his sons were ordained priests. This made them more holy than ordinary Israelites and therefore able to approach God and offer sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>Before anyone could become holy, they had to be “clean.” Cleanness in Leviticus means more than just being free of dirt, though this idea is included. It means being free of any abnormality. Whenever a person appears to fall short of perfection, he is described as “unclean.” Thus, the worst uncleanness is death, the very opposite of perfect life. But bleeding and other discharges and patchy skin diseases can make someone unclean. Animals that move in peculiar ways or have strange habits are also called unclean (Lv 11–15).<\/p>\n<p>Holiness and its opposite, uncleanness, can describe behavior as well as outward appearance. To be holy means to obey God and to act like God. Chapters 18–25 explain what holiness means in daily living. It means avoiding illicit sexual relations, caring for the poor, being honest, being fair, and loving your neighbor as yourself. This sort of behavior made Israel different from other peoples. Through their holiness the whole nation was supposed to demonstrate what God was like.<\/p>\n<h5>Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>In practice, unfortunately, the nation and the individuals within it rarely lived up to these ideals of holiness. Even if one did not commit a grievous sin, he or she was always liable to become unclean through contact with someone else, touching a dead animal, or in some other way. To maintain contact with a holy God, Israel’s sins and uncleanness had to be removed. This is what the sacrifices were for. They brought the forgiveness of sins and cleansing from uncleanness. Because sin affects relations between God and humans in various ways, Leviticus provides four different types of offerings to cover the different cases (Lv 1–6), and explains which sacrifices must be offered on which occasions (chs 7–17). All these rituals served to underline the seriousness of sin and helped preserve peace and fellowship between God and humanity.<\/p>\n<h5>The Sinai Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>All the laws contained in Leviticus form part of the Sinai covenant. They fill out and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments to the specific circumstances of ancient Israel. But they are more than a set of detailed rules, because they were given as part of the covenant. Three things have to be remembered about this covenant. First, the covenant created a personal relationship. The Lord became Israel’s king, and Israel became his special treasure set apart from the other nations of the world. Second, the covenant was based on God’s grace. He had made a promise to Abraham and, in saving the people from Egyptian slavery, he demonstrated his faithfulness to his promise and his love for Israel. Israel, in turn, was to show its gratitude for salvation by keeping the law. In no way did keeping the law earn them salvation. The law was given to a redeemed people. Finally, there were promises and threats built into the covenant (Lv 26). When the nation keeps the law, God promises they will enjoy good harvests, victory over their enemies, and God walking among them as he did in Eden. But if they reject God’s laws, terrible calamities will befall them: drought, famine, defeat, and even expulsion from the land God had promised to give them. These covenant curses form the background to the prophets’ warnings in later times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Kinds of Sacrifices (1–7)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters explain how the different kinds of sacrifices were to be offered. Most of these sacrifices also formed part of the regular worship in the tabernacle and later in the temple. But these chapters are concerned with personal offerings made when someone had sinned or made a vow or recovered from an illness. They explain what the offerer must do and what the priest must do, which parts of the animal must be burned, which parts may be eaten by the priest, and what is to be done with the blood of the animal.<\/p>\n<p>First, the offerer brought the animal into the outer court of the tabernacle. In the presence of the priest he put his hand on the head of the animal and explained why he was bringing the sacrifice. Then the worshiper killed the animal and chopped it up. The priest then took over. He caught the blood as it ran out of the dying animal and splashed it over the altar, and burned at least some of the animal on the great altar in the court of the tabernacle. These acts were performed with all the animal sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The special feature of the burnt offering (Lv 1) was that the whole animal, which had to be unblemished, was burned on the altar. All that the priest received was the skin. This was the most common sacrifice and was offered on many different occasions. In giving the whole animal to God in the sacrifice, the worshiper dedicated himself or herself totally to God’s service. “Lay your hand on its head so the <span>Lord<\/span> will accept it as your substitute, thus making atonement for you” (1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 deals with the grain offering that always accompanied the burnt offering, but which could also be offered alone. Only part of this offering was burned; the rest was given to the priests to eat. The sacrifices formed an important part of their income.<\/p>\n<p>The peace (fellowship) offering’s special feature was that it was the only sacrifice where the offerer was allowed to eat part of the meat (Lv 3). Since in the earliest period Israelites were not permitted to kill animals except for sacrifice (ch 17), every meal that included meat had to be preceded by a peace offering. Leviticus 7:11-18 mentions three occasions that might prompt a peace-offering “thanksgiving”: when someone had something to praise God for or some sin to acknowledge; a vow promising a sacrifice if God would help one out of a difficulty; and a voluntary offering, made just because the person felt like it.<\/p>\n<p>Despite its name, the sin offering (Lv 4) was not the only offering dealing with sin. The other sacrifices also made the forgiveness of sin possible. The special significance of this sacrifice is emphasized by its unusual ritual. Instead of the blood being splashed over the altar, as in the other sacrifices, it was carefully smeared over the horns (corners) of the large altar in the courtyard (4:30) or over the small altar inside the holy place (v 18); once a year the blood was sprinkled over the ark in the Holy of Holies (16:14). Sin makes these different parts of the tabernacle unclean, unfit for the presence of God. And if God is not present in the tabernacle, worship has no point. The blood acts as a spiritual disinfectant, making the tabernacle clean and holy again. The sin offering was required whenever a person inadvertently broke one of the commandments or had suffered from a discharge or skin disease that made him or her unclean for a week or more (chs 12, 15).<\/p>\n<p>The guilt offering (5:14–6:7) was for more serious offenses, such as stealing holy property or deliberately using God’s name in a false oath. Such an offense was seen as robbing God. Therefore, a ram had to be offered as a sort of repayment. Whereas the poor person could offer just a bird for the other sacrifices, a ram was always required for a guilt offering.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 6:8–7:38 contain various other regulations about sacrifice, mainly specifying how much of each sacrifice the priests may eat and how much must be burned. One important rule for those who weren’t priests was that they were not to eat any fat or blood or eat sacrificial meat when they were unclean. If they did, they could be cut off from Israel (7:21-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginnings of the Priesthood (8–10)<\/h5>\n<p>Though Leviticus looks like a law book, because it contains so many regulations, it is really a history book describing the events that occurred about a year after the exodus. These chapters remind us of the true character of the book, for they tell how Moses ordained Aaron and his sons to be priests and how they offered their first sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Awed by the complexity of the ordination rituals, the modern reader may miss the marvel that Aaron should have been appointed high priest. For it was Aaron who had presided over the making of the golden calf and encouraged its worship (Ex 32). Had not Moses interceded for Israel, the whole nation would have been destroyed in the wilderness. Here the gracious forgiveness of God is most clear. Aaron, the chief sinner, is appointed chief mediator between God and the people. In the NT the career of Peter parallels Aaron’s in some respect.<\/p>\n<p>The greatness of the high priesthood is symbolized by the richly decorated robes Aaron wore. He and his sons were anointed with oil, and then Moses offered the three most common sacrifices on their behalf. They were confined to the court of the tabernacle for a week, and it seems likely that some of the rituals were repeated each day. By this means they were set apart from the rest of the people and entirely consecrated to their holy office.<\/p>\n<p>By the eighth day the process was complete. Now Aaron and his sons could offer sacrifice. This time, Moses only told them what to do; he did not offer sacrifices himself. Chapter 9 concludes by telling that, after they had offered the sacrifices for themselves and the people, fire came out of the tabernacle to burn up the offerings, thereby displaying God’s approval of their actions.<\/p>\n<p>After this, 10:1-2 presents an unexpected turn of events: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the <span>Lord<\/span> by burning before him a different kind of fire than he had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the <span>Lord<\/span>’s presence and burned them up, and they died there before the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). We do not know exactly what is meant by unholy fire. What is important is that the priests did something that God had not commanded them. The priests were supposed to set an example of total obedience to God’s word: this is the essence of holiness. Instead, they decided to follow their own plans and the consequences were dire.<\/p>\n<p>“Aaron was silent” (10:3). He was warned not even to mourn his sons’ deaths, lest he be suspected of condoning their sin (vv 6-7). Yet, despite his sons’ actions, Aaron and his surviving sons were confirmed as priests. They were reminded that their job was “to distinguish between what is holy and what is ordinary, what is ceremonially unclean and what is clean. And you must teach the Israelites all the laws that the <span>Lord<\/span> has given through Moses” (vv 10-11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The chapter closes on another note of grace. Although the priests made a mistake in offering one of the sin offerings, God would overlook it on this occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Cleanness and Uncleanness (11–16)<\/h5>\n<p>Distinguishing between the unclean and the clean is the theme of chapters 11–15, which prepare for the great Day of Atonement ceremonies of chapter 16. These are designed to cleanse the tabernacle from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, thereby ensuring that God would continue to dwell among them (16:16, 19).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 11 discusses unclean animals, that is, animals that may not be eaten. Land animals are dealt with first, then fish and birds, and finally various miscellaneous creatures such as locusts and reptiles. To be clean, a land animal must have cloven hooves and chew the cud; that covers sheep and cattle but excludes pigs and camels. Fish must have fins and scales to be edible; without them, they count as unclean. Birds are clean unless they are birds of prey or scavengers that eat carrion. Insects that resemble birds in having wings and two large legs to hop with—for example, locusts—are clean. Other flying insects are unclean. All squirming creatures that dart hither and thither, such as lizards, are unclean.<\/p>\n<p>The reasons for declaring some animals clean and others unclean has long been a great puzzle. One suggestion is that the unclean animals were used in sacrifice by pagan worshipers or were thought to represent pagan deities. Certainly some unclean animals were used in pagan worship, but so were some clean ones, and that fact makes this explanation unsatisfactory. A second possibility is that the rules were hygienic: the clean animals were safe to eat whereas the unclean were not. There may be some truth in this explanation, but it is not completely adequate, for some clean animals can be harmful while some unclean ones are all right to eat.<\/p>\n<p>Unclean animals could not be eaten, but there was no harm in touching them. Israelites could ride camels, for example. However, all dead animals, unless killed for sacrifice, were unclean. Anyone who touched the carcass of a dead creature became unclean himself and therefore could not enter the tabernacle that day (11:39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The following chapters deal with other conditions that make people unclean. Chapter 12 states that childbirth, or more precisely the bloody discharge that follows childbirth, makes a woman unclean. In OT theology death is the ultimate uncleanness, and conditions that are abnormal or threaten to lead to death are also unclean. When the discharge has ceased, after a fixed period the mother must bring a burnt offering and a sin offering to atone for any sin she may have committed, and to purify the tabernacle that may have been polluted through her uncleanness.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 13–14 deal with the uncleanness caused by skin diseases. Detailed regulations are given to distinguish between different diseases so that the priests can decide whether people are unclean or not. If they are unclean, they must live outside the camp until their skin heals. Traditionally the unclean skin disease has been called leprosy. But this is unlikely to be correct, since leprosy was unknown in the Middle East in OT times. Rather, it was any disease that led to the skin peeling off in patches, such as psoriasis. This explains why the disease might spontaneously get better.<\/p>\n<p>If the disease did retreat sufficiently, the sufferer could call the priest, and if the priest was satisfied with the cure, the sufferer could be readmitted to the community after following the rituals prescribed in chapter 14. This also explains what is to be done if patches of mold are found in pieces of cloth or house walls.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 explains how men can become unclean through discharges from their sexual organs, due to gonorrhea or sexual intercourse, while women become unclean through menstruation or a long-term discharge. Part of the purpose of these regulations is to prevent the sacred prostitution that was common in the ancient world. Since sexual intercourse made people unclean, they could not go to worship immediately afterward. Further, the uncleanness of menstruation should have discouraged men from being overfamiliar with unmarried girls.<\/p>\n<p>The broad scope of these uncleanness regulations meant that nearly every Israelite would be unclean at some time in his or her life. This uncleanness could contaminate God’s dwelling place, the tabernacle, making it impossible for God to continue to live there. To avert this catastrophe, a Day of Atonement was held once a year. This is the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar, and the ceremonies for it are described in detail in Leviticus 16.<\/p>\n<p>There are three acts on the Day of Atonement that are described in this chapter. There was first the special sin offering offered by the high priest, in the course of which the outer altar of burnt offering, the incense altar inside the Holy Place, and finally the ark itself in the Holy of Holies were sprinkled with blood to purify each part of the tabernacle. This was the one occasion in the year when the high priest entered the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, and elaborate precautions were taken to screen the high priest from God’s holiness (16:2-4, 11-17). There was another public act that pictured the sins of Israel being taken away. A goat was chosen by lot. Then the high priest placed his hands on its head and recited over it the nation’s sin. This goat was then led away and driven into a solitary place; in later times it was pushed over a precipice. These actions pictured Israel’s sins being carried away, so that they could not disturb the peace between God and his people. The third important feature of the Day of Atonement was public prayer and fasting. This showed that sin could not be eliminated without effort, but only through a complete change of heart by every person in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Rules for Daily Life (17–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Whereas the opening chapters of Leviticus are entirely concerned with the Godward side of religion, the later chapters are more concerned with practical religious duties toward other persons. However, chapter 17 repeats some of the rules about sacrifice and makes one new one: that all sacrifice must be offered in the tabernacle courtyard. This was to prevent people from secretly worshiping heathen gods.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18 and 20 spell out the rules governing sexual relations in ancient Israel. Chapter 19 gives further examples of what holiness means in everyday life. Positively, it means helping the poor by leaving some grain behind in the fields at harvesttime (19:9-10); paying people promptly (v 13); avoiding gossip (v 16); honoring the elderly, helping the immigrant, and being honest in business (vv 32-36). But holiness goes beyond deeds and words. It should transform thoughts: “Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself” (v 18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 21 and 22 discuss how the holy men of Israel, the priests, are to demonstrate their holiness in their lives. First, they must avoid approaching dead bodies unless the dead are very close relatives. Second, they must marry women of known moral uprightness. Third, deformed priests—for example, a blind or lame priest—may never offer sacrifices. Here the principle is plain that men who represent God must reflect the perfection of God in normal, healthy bodies. However, those who are temporarily unclean, through skin disease or a discharge, may resume their duties as soon as their uncleanness is cured.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 23 lists the main holy days and the sacrifices that had to be offered on each one. Chapter 24 deals with the lamp and special bread kept within the tabernacle. A case of blasphemy that occurred in the wilderness is mentioned. Because the man actually used the sacred name of God in a curse, he was sentenced to death.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 deals with the jubilee year. In every society people fall into debt. Today the effects of debt are somewhat cushioned by state welfare payments and bank overdrafts, but ancient societies did not have such aid available. People in debt had to sell off their family land, on which they depended for their living, or in more serious situations, they could sell themselves into slavery. Once impoverished in this way, it was exceedingly difficult ever to recover one’s land or one’s freedom. But this law in Leviticus provided an escape. Every 50 years was a jubilee. In this year every slave was released from bondage, and everyone who had sold his land was given it back free. Thus, everyone who fell into debt was given a chance to make a fresh start. Though this law was primarily designed to help the poor, it also served to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in the hands of a few rich men.<\/p>\n<h5>Blessings, Curses, and Vows (26–27)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapter 26 contains the blessings and curses that traditionally concluded a covenant. Israel is promised great material and spiritual prosperity if she keeps the law but is warned that tragedy will befall if she is disobedient.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 27 is an appendix dealing with vows and other gifts made to God. When a person promises to give something to God, it becomes holy and cannot be retracted unless a suitable payment is made instead. This chapter sets out the rules about such dedications.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron; Moses; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEVITICUS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Leviticus was not put into writing as soon as it was revealed, but there is little to commend the common critical view that it was composed nearly a thousand years after Moses. The spelling and grammar of Leviticus was, like other books of the OT, revised from time to time to make it understandable to later generations of Jewish readers, but that does not mean the essential content of the book was modified.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>God revealed some of the laws in Leviticus by speaking to Moses from the tent of meeting, or tabernacle (Lv 1:1). Other laws were revealed on Mt Sinai (26:46). Such statements show that Moses learned the contents of Leviticus after the tabernacle had been built but before the Israelites left Mt Sinai. This fits in with Exodus 40:17, which says that the tabernacle was erected exactly a year after the Israelites left Egypt. They then spent another month at Sinai, during which time the laws in Leviticus were given to Moses. Then one month later (Nm 1:1) Moses was commanded to prepare the people to leave Sinai to conquer the Promised Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to give an exact date for the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Dates at the end of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span> or early in the 13th century are put forward by different scholars. Whichever view is adopted, the origin of Leviticus must be one year later than the exodus. But certainty about the absolute date of Leviticus is unimportant so long as the religious setting of the book is understood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>About 400 years before the exodus, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be very numerous and live in the land of Canaan. The family of Abraham multiplied, but as a result of famine they had to go and live in Egypt. Afraid of the Israelites, the rulers of Egypt turned them into slaves.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus tells how God, acting through Moses, brought the Israelites out of Egypt in a miraculous way. Moses led them to Mt Sinai, where God appeared in fire and smoke on the top of the mountain. Moses went up the mountain, and there God gave him the Ten Commandments and explained various laws. Through these acts God showed that he had chosen the nation of Israel to be his special holy people, different from all the other nations because they would show God’s character through their behavior (cf. Ex 19:5-6).<\/p>\n\n<p>God’s revelation at Sinai was unique and unrepeatable. But he disclosed to Moses that he wanted to live among the people of Israel permanently. They were told to build a portable royal palace that would be suitable for the divine King of kings. The building of this portable palace, traditionally called the tabernacle, is described in Exodus 35–40. When it was completed, the fire and cloud that had been seen on Mt Sinai appeared over the tabernacle as a sign that God was now dwelling in it (Ex 40:34-38).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus also tells how Moses was told to appoint his brother, Aaron, and Aaron’s sons to serve in the tabernacle as priests (Ex 28–29). Unfortunately, before the Israelites even began to build the tabernacle, they made a golden calf under Aaron’s leadership and started to worship it instead. The people were spared only as a result of Moses’ prayers. The book of Exodus therefore leaves the reader in suspense. The tabernacle has been built, but no one knows how to worship God in it. Though Aaron and his family are alive, we are left wondering whether they will still be allowed to lead the worship of God after the idolatry of the golden calf. The book of Leviticus answers this question.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>The Ten Commandments explain briefly and simply how God expects his people to behave. The first four commandments explain our duty toward our neighbor. The book of Leviticus follows a similar scheme. Chapters 1–17 show how God wanted Israel to worship him, while chapters 18–27 are mainly concerned with how people should behave toward each other. Whereas the Ten Commandments are general and can be applied quite easily to every society, the book of Leviticus is much more detailed and specifically geared to the special circumstances of ancient Israel. If modern readers are to profit from reading Leviticus, they must look behind the specific regulations to the underlying religious principles that do not change—in other words, to the theology of Leviticus.<\/p>\n<p>Four themes are very important in the theology of Leviticus: (1) the presence of God, (2) holiness, (3) sacrifice, and (4) the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<h5>The Presence of God<\/h5>\n<p>God is always present with Israel in a real way. Sometimes his presence becomes visible in fire and smoke. But even when there is no miraculous sign, God is present. He is especially near when people worship him and offer sacrifice. The many animal sacrifices mentioned in the book are all brought to the Lord. When the animals are burnt, God is pleased with the smell (1:9). The priests who offer the sacrifices must be especially careful since they come closer to God than other people do. If they are careless in their duties and break God’s commands, they may die (10:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>God is present not just in worship but in all the ordinary duties of life. The recurring refrain of the later chapters, “I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, am your God” (18:2; 19:3), reminds the Israelites that every aspect of their life—religion (chs 21–24), sex (chs 18, 20), and relations with neighbors (chs 19, 25)—matters to God. The behavior of every Israelite must mirror that of God himself (20:7). The fear of God should prompt persons to help the blind, the deaf, the elderly, and the poor. Though such people may have no redress against unfair treatment, God cares about what happens to them (19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43).<\/p>\n<h5>Holiness<\/h5>\n<p>“You must be holy because I am holy” (11:44-45; 19:2; 20:26) could be termed the motto of Leviticus. “Holy,” “clean,” and “unclean” are common words in this book. God is the supremely holy person in the Bible, and holiness is the distinctive feature of his character. But earthly creatures can become holy too. To become holy, a person must be chosen by God and undergo the correct ceremony. Thus, at Sinai all Israel became a holy nation (Ex 19:6). Leviticus 8–9 explains how Aaron and his sons were ordained priests. This made them more holy than ordinary Israelites and therefore able to approach God and offer sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>Before anyone could become holy, they had to be “clean.” Cleanness in Leviticus means more than just being free of dirt, though this idea is included. It means being free of any abnormality. Whenever a person appears to fall short of perfection, he is described as “unclean.” Thus, the worst uncleanness is death, the very opposite of perfect life. But bleeding and other discharges and patchy skin diseases can make someone unclean. Animals that move in peculiar ways or have strange habits are also called unclean (Lv 11–15).<\/p>\n<p>Holiness and its opposite, uncleanness, can describe behavior as well as outward appearance. To be holy means to obey God and to act like God. Chapters 18–25 explain what holiness means in daily living. It means avoiding illicit sexual relations, caring for the poor, being honest, being fair, and loving your neighbor as yourself. This sort of behavior made Israel different from other peoples. Through their holiness the whole nation was supposed to demonstrate what God was like.<\/p>\n<h5>Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>In practice, unfortunately, the nation and the individuals within it rarely lived up to these ideals of holiness. Even if one did not commit a grievous sin, he or she was always liable to become unclean through contact with someone else, touching a dead animal, or in some other way. To maintain contact with a holy God, Israel’s sins and uncleanness had to be removed. This is what the sacrifices were for. They brought the forgiveness of sins and cleansing from uncleanness. Because sin affects relations between God and humans in various ways, Leviticus provides four different types of offerings to cover the different cases (Lv 1–6), and explains which sacrifices must be offered on which occasions (chs 7–17). All these rituals served to underline the seriousness of sin and helped preserve peace and fellowship between God and humanity.<\/p>\n<h5>The Sinai Covenant<\/h5>\n<p>All the laws contained in Leviticus form part of the Sinai covenant. They fill out and apply the principles of the Ten Commandments to the specific circumstances of ancient Israel. But they are more than a set of detailed rules, because they were given as part of the covenant. Three things have to be remembered about this covenant. First, the covenant created a personal relationship. The Lord became Israel’s king, and Israel became his special treasure set apart from the other nations of the world. Second, the covenant was based on God’s grace. He had made a promise to Abraham and, in saving the people from Egyptian slavery, he demonstrated his faithfulness to his promise and his love for Israel. Israel, in turn, was to show its gratitude for salvation by keeping the law. In no way did keeping the law earn them salvation. The law was given to a redeemed people. Finally, there were promises and threats built into the covenant (Lv 26). When the nation keeps the law, God promises they will enjoy good harvests, victory over their enemies, and God walking among them as he did in Eden. But if they reject God’s laws, terrible calamities will befall them: drought, famine, defeat, and even expulsion from the land God had promised to give them. These covenant curses form the background to the prophets’ warnings in later times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Kinds of Sacrifices (1–7)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters explain how the different kinds of sacrifices were to be offered. Most of these sacrifices also formed part of the regular worship in the tabernacle and later in the temple. But these chapters are concerned with personal offerings made when someone had sinned or made a vow or recovered from an illness. They explain what the offerer must do and what the priest must do, which parts of the animal must be burned, which parts may be eaten by the priest, and what is to be done with the blood of the animal.<\/p>\n<p>First, the offerer brought the animal into the outer court of the tabernacle. In the presence of the priest he put his hand on the head of the animal and explained why he was bringing the sacrifice. Then the worshiper killed the animal and chopped it up. The priest then took over. He caught the blood as it ran out of the dying animal and splashed it over the altar, and burned at least some of the animal on the great altar in the court of the tabernacle. These acts were performed with all the animal sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The special feature of the burnt offering (Lv 1) was that the whole animal, which had to be unblemished, was burned on the altar. All that the priest received was the skin. This was the most common sacrifice and was offered on many different occasions. In giving the whole animal to God in the sacrifice, the worshiper dedicated himself or herself totally to God’s service. “Lay your hand on its head so the <span>Lord<\/span> will accept it as your substitute, thus making atonement for you” (1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 2 deals with the grain offering that always accompanied the burnt offering, but which could also be offered alone. Only part of this offering was burned; the rest was given to the priests to eat. The sacrifices formed an important part of their income.<\/p>\n<p>The peace (fellowship) offering’s special feature was that it was the only sacrifice where the offerer was allowed to eat part of the meat (Lv 3). Since in the earliest period Israelites were not permitted to kill animals except for sacrifice (ch 17), every meal that included meat had to be preceded by a peace offering. Leviticus 7:11-18 mentions three occasions that might prompt a peace-offering “thanksgiving”: when someone had something to praise God for or some sin to acknowledge; a vow promising a sacrifice if God would help one out of a difficulty; and a voluntary offering, made just because the person felt like it.<\/p>\n<p>Despite its name, the sin offering (Lv 4) was not the only offering dealing with sin. The other sacrifices also made the forgiveness of sin possible. The special significance of this sacrifice is emphasized by its unusual ritual. Instead of the blood being splashed over the altar, as in the other sacrifices, it was carefully smeared over the horns (corners) of the large altar in the courtyard (4:30) or over the small altar inside the holy place (v 18); once a year the blood was sprinkled over the ark in the Holy of Holies (16:14). Sin makes these different parts of the tabernacle unclean, unfit for the presence of God. And if God is not present in the tabernacle, worship has no point. The blood acts as a spiritual disinfectant, making the tabernacle clean and holy again. The sin offering was required whenever a person inadvertently broke one of the commandments or had suffered from a discharge or skin disease that made him or her unclean for a week or more (chs 12, 15).<\/p>\n<p>The guilt offering (5:14–6:7) was for more serious offenses, such as stealing holy property or deliberately using God’s name in a false oath. Such an offense was seen as robbing God. Therefore, a ram had to be offered as a sort of repayment. Whereas the poor person could offer just a bird for the other sacrifices, a ram was always required for a guilt offering.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 6:8–7:38 contain various other regulations about sacrifice, mainly specifying how much of each sacrifice the priests may eat and how much must be burned. One important rule for those who weren’t priests was that they were not to eat any fat or blood or eat sacrificial meat when they were unclean. If they did, they could be cut off from Israel (7:21-27).<\/p>\n<h5>Beginnings of the Priesthood (8–10)<\/h5>\n<p>Though Leviticus looks like a law book, because it contains so many regulations, it is really a history book describing the events that occurred about a year after the exodus. These chapters remind us of the true character of the book, for they tell how Moses ordained Aaron and his sons to be priests and how they offered their first sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Awed by the complexity of the ordination rituals, the modern reader may miss the marvel that Aaron should have been appointed high priest. For it was Aaron who had presided over the making of the golden calf and encouraged its worship (Ex 32). Had not Moses interceded for Israel, the whole nation would have been destroyed in the wilderness. Here the gracious forgiveness of God is most clear. Aaron, the chief sinner, is appointed chief mediator between God and the people. In the NT the career of Peter parallels Aaron’s in some respect.<\/p>\n<p>The greatness of the high priesthood is symbolized by the richly decorated robes Aaron wore. He and his sons were anointed with oil, and then Moses offered the three most common sacrifices on their behalf. They were confined to the court of the tabernacle for a week, and it seems likely that some of the rituals were repeated each day. By this means they were set apart from the rest of the people and entirely consecrated to their holy office.<\/p>\n<p>By the eighth day the process was complete. Now Aaron and his sons could offer sacrifice. This time, Moses only told them what to do; he did not offer sacrifices himself. Chapter 9 concludes by telling that, after they had offered the sacrifices for themselves and the people, fire came out of the tabernacle to burn up the offerings, thereby displaying God’s approval of their actions.<\/p>\n<p>After this, 10:1-2 presents an unexpected turn of events: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu put coals of fire in their incense burners and sprinkled incense over it. In this way, they disobeyed the <span>Lord<\/span> by burning before him a different kind of fire than he had commanded. So fire blazed forth from the <span>Lord<\/span>’s presence and burned them up, and they died there before the <span>Lord<\/span>” (<span>nlt<\/span>). We do not know exactly what is meant by unholy fire. What is important is that the priests did something that God had not commanded them. The priests were supposed to set an example of total obedience to God’s word: this is the essence of holiness. Instead, they decided to follow their own plans and the consequences were dire.<\/p>\n<p>“Aaron was silent” (10:3). He was warned not even to mourn his sons’ deaths, lest he be suspected of condoning their sin (vv 6-7). Yet, despite his sons’ actions, Aaron and his surviving sons were confirmed as priests. They were reminded that their job was “to distinguish between what is holy and what is ordinary, what is ceremonially unclean and what is clean. And you must teach the Israelites all the laws that the <span>Lord<\/span> has given through Moses” (vv 10-11, <span>nlt<\/span>). The chapter closes on another note of grace. Although the priests made a mistake in offering one of the sin offerings, God would overlook it on this occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Cleanness and Uncleanness (11–16)<\/h5>\n<p>Distinguishing between the unclean and the clean is the theme of chapters 11–15, which prepare for the great Day of Atonement ceremonies of chapter 16. These are designed to cleanse the tabernacle from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, thereby ensuring that God would continue to dwell among them (16:16, 19).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 11 discusses unclean animals, that is, animals that may not be eaten. Land animals are dealt with first, then fish and birds, and finally various miscellaneous creatures such as locusts and reptiles. To be clean, a land animal must have cloven hooves and chew the cud; that covers sheep and cattle but excludes pigs and camels. Fish must have fins and scales to be edible; without them, they count as unclean. Birds are clean unless they are birds of prey or scavengers that eat carrion. Insects that resemble birds in having wings and two large legs to hop with—for example, locusts—are clean. Other flying insects are unclean. All squirming creatures that dart hither and thither, such as lizards, are unclean.<\/p>\n<p>The reasons for declaring some animals clean and others unclean has long been a great puzzle. One suggestion is that the unclean animals were used in sacrifice by pagan worshipers or were thought to represent pagan deities. Certainly some unclean animals were used in pagan worship, but so were some clean ones, and that fact makes this explanation unsatisfactory. A second possibility is that the rules were hygienic: the clean animals were safe to eat whereas the unclean were not. There may be some truth in this explanation, but it is not completely adequate, for some clean animals can be harmful while some unclean ones are all right to eat.<\/p>\n<p>Unclean animals could not be eaten, but there was no harm in touching them. Israelites could ride camels, for example. However, all dead animals, unless killed for sacrifice, were unclean. Anyone who touched the carcass of a dead creature became unclean himself and therefore could not enter the tabernacle that day (11:39-40).<\/p>\n<p>The following chapters deal with other conditions that make people unclean. Chapter 12 states that childbirth, or more precisely the bloody discharge that follows childbirth, makes a woman unclean. In OT theology death is the ultimate uncleanness, and conditions that are abnormal or threaten to lead to death are also unclean. When the discharge has ceased, after a fixed period the mother must bring a burnt offering and a sin offering to atone for any sin she may have committed, and to purify the tabernacle that may have been polluted through her uncleanness.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 13–14 deal with the uncleanness caused by skin diseases. Detailed regulations are given to distinguish between different diseases so that the priests can decide whether people are unclean or not. If they are unclean, they must live outside the camp until their skin heals. Traditionally the unclean skin disease has been called leprosy. But this is unlikely to be correct, since leprosy was unknown in the Middle East in OT times. Rather, it was any disease that led to the skin peeling off in patches, such as psoriasis. This explains why the disease might spontaneously get better.<\/p>\n<p>If the disease did retreat sufficiently, the sufferer could call the priest, and if the priest was satisfied with the cure, the sufferer could be readmitted to the community after following the rituals prescribed in chapter 14. This also explains what is to be done if patches of mold are found in pieces of cloth or house walls.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 explains how men can become unclean through discharges from their sexual organs, due to gonorrhea or sexual intercourse, while women become unclean through menstruation or a long-term discharge. Part of the purpose of these regulations is to prevent the sacred prostitution that was common in the ancient world. Since sexual intercourse made people unclean, they could not go to worship immediately afterward. Further, the uncleanness of menstruation should have discouraged men from being overfamiliar with unmarried girls.<\/p>\n<p>The broad scope of these uncleanness regulations meant that nearly every Israelite would be unclean at some time in his or her life. This uncleanness could contaminate God’s dwelling place, the tabernacle, making it impossible for God to continue to live there. To avert this catastrophe, a Day of Atonement was held once a year. This is the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar, and the ceremonies for it are described in detail in Leviticus 16.<\/p>\n<p>There are three acts on the Day of Atonement that are described in this chapter. There was first the special sin offering offered by the high priest, in the course of which the outer altar of burnt offering, the incense altar inside the Holy Place, and finally the ark itself in the Holy of Holies were sprinkled with blood to purify each part of the tabernacle. This was the one occasion in the year when the high priest entered the presence of God in the Holy of Holies, and elaborate precautions were taken to screen the high priest from God’s holiness (16:2-4, 11-17). There was another public act that pictured the sins of Israel being taken away. A goat was chosen by lot. Then the high priest placed his hands on its head and recited over it the nation’s sin. This goat was then led away and driven into a solitary place; in later times it was pushed over a precipice. These actions pictured Israel’s sins being carried away, so that they could not disturb the peace between God and his people. The third important feature of the Day of Atonement was public prayer and fasting. This showed that sin could not be eliminated without effort, but only through a complete change of heart by every person in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Rules for Daily Life (17–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Whereas the opening chapters of Leviticus are entirely concerned with the Godward side of religion, the later chapters are more concerned with practical religious duties toward other persons. However, chapter 17 repeats some of the rules about sacrifice and makes one new one: that all sacrifice must be offered in the tabernacle courtyard. This was to prevent people from secretly worshiping heathen gods.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18 and 20 spell out the rules governing sexual relations in ancient Israel. Chapter 19 gives further examples of what holiness means in everyday life. Positively, it means helping the poor by leaving some grain behind in the fields at harvesttime (19:9-10); paying people promptly (v 13); avoiding gossip (v 16); honoring the elderly, helping the immigrant, and being honest in business (vv 32-36). But holiness goes beyond deeds and words. It should transform thoughts: “Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself” (v 18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 21 and 22 discuss how the holy men of Israel, the priests, are to demonstrate their holiness in their lives. First, they must avoid approaching dead bodies unless the dead are very close relatives. Second, they must marry women of known moral uprightness. Third, deformed priests—for example, a blind or lame priest—may never offer sacrifices. Here the principle is plain that men who represent God must reflect the perfection of God in normal, healthy bodies. However, those who are temporarily unclean, through skin disease or a discharge, may resume their duties as soon as their uncleanness is cured.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 23 lists the main holy days and the sacrifices that had to be offered on each one. Chapter 24 deals with the lamp and special bread kept within the tabernacle. A case of blasphemy that occurred in the wilderness is mentioned. Because the man actually used the sacred name of God in a curse, he was sentenced to death.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 25 deals with the jubilee year. In every society people fall into debt. Today the effects of debt are somewhat cushioned by state welfare payments and bank overdrafts, but ancient societies did not have such aid available. People in debt had to sell off their family land, on which they depended for their living, or in more serious situations, they could sell themselves into slavery. Once impoverished in this way, it was exceedingly difficult ever to recover one’s land or one’s freedom. But this law in Leviticus provided an escape. Every 50 years was a jubilee. In this year every slave was released from bondage, and everyone who had sold his land was given it back free. Thus, everyone who fell into debt was given a chance to make a fresh start. Though this law was primarily designed to help the poor, it also served to prevent the accumulation of too much wealth in the hands of a few rich men.<\/p>\n<h5>Blessings, Curses, and Vows (26–27)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapter 26 contains the blessings and curses that traditionally concluded a covenant. Israel is promised great material and spiritual prosperity if she keeps the law but is warned that tragedy will befall if she is disobedient.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 27 is an appendix dealing with vows and other gifts made to God. When a person promises to give something to God, it becomes holy and cannot be retracted unless a suitable payment is made instead. This chapter sets out the rules about such dedications.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron; Moses; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEVITICUS, Book of Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests. Preview • Author • Date • Background • Purpose and Theology • Content Author A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Le...","summary_en":"LEVITICUS, Book of Third book of the OT, largely concerned with the duties of the Levitical priests. Preview • Author • Date • Background • Purpose and Theology • Content Author A traditional alternative title of Leviticus is the Third Book of Moses, which gives proper credit to the man who most deserves to be called its author. For though the book never says that Moses wrote down any of the material, it repeatedly states that God revealed the contents of Leviticus to Moses. It may be that Le...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mourning","title_en":"Mourning","content_ro":"<h3>MOURNING<\/h3>\n<p>Established ritual for grieving, observed by a dead person’s relatives and friends. It began with the closing of the eyes of the dead (Gn 46:4), the embracing of the body (50:1), and its preparation for burial. The hot climate necessitated that burial take place immediately (Acts 5:1-10). But detailed information about burial earlier than NT times (Mt 27:59; Jn 11:44; 19:39-40) is extremely meager. Excavations suggest that the dead were buried fully clothed but not in coffins. The Israelites practiced neither embalming nor cremation, but decent burial was essential.<\/p>\n<p>At the news of a death, it was customary to tear one’s garments (Gn 37:34; 2 Sm 1:11; Jb 1:20), put on sackcloth (2 Sm 3:31), and take off one’s shoes (2 Sm 15:30; Mi 1:8) and headdress; a man might cover his beard or veil his face (Ez 24:17, 23). Mourners put earth on their heads (Jos 7:6; 1 Sm 4:12; Neh 9:1; Jb 2:12; Ez 27:30) or rolled themselves in the dust (Jb 16:15; Mi 1:10) or sat on a heap of ashes (Est 4:3; Is 58:5; Jer 6:26; Ez 27:30). Such mourning rites as shaving the hair and the beard and making cuts on the body (Jb 1:20; Is 22:12; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; Ez 7:18; Am 8:10) were condemned (Lv 19:27-28; Dt 14:1) because of pagan associations. Mourners refrained from washing and discontinued the use of perfumes (2 Sm 12:20; 14:2).<\/p>\n<p>Fasting was also a mourning rite (1 Sm 31:13; 2 Sm 1:12). Neighbors or friends brought mourning bread and the “cup of consolation” to the relatives of the deceased (Jer 16:7; Ez 24:17, 22). Food could not be prepared at the house of the dead because death rendered a place unclean. The dead were unclean to the extent that a priest could “profane” himself by taking part in mourning rites, except for his nearest blood relatives (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister, provided she was still a virgin; Lv 21:1-4, 10-11). These mourning rites were not acts of worship directed toward the dead, nor did they constitute a cult for the dead, but rather they were expressions of grief and affection.<\/p>\n<p>At the graveside, lamentation for the dead was made (1 Kgs 13:30; Jer 6:26; Am 5:16; 8:10; Zec 12:10) by men and women in separate groups (Zec 12:11-14). These exclamations of sorrow might develop into a rhythmic lament (2 Sm 1:17-27; Am 8:10). However, professional mourners, men and especially women (Jer 9:17-19; Am 5:16), were employed. The book of Lamentations is a fine example of laments and is a reminder that among Jews mourning was not always associated with death. It expressed brokenness of spirit for sin, individual and national. National calamity also evoked great lamentation.<\/p>\n<p>These mourning rites were expressive of great grief. But some of them—tearing clothes, wearing sackcloth, disfiguring oneself with dust and ashes, self-mutilation—point to paroxysms of grief, the religious significance of which now escapes us. This was far removed from mourning as an inner feeling or a mood of the mind. It was not just an involuntary outburst of feeling but rather a deliberate, established ritual. When death occurred, the Israelite wept because it was customary and seemly. The erection of monuments or memorials was not unknown (2 Sm 18:18), but the average Israelite was too poor for this to be a common practice.<\/p>\n<p>Mourning practices in NT times differed little from those described in the OT. Mourning was associated with Christ’s second advent (Mt 24:30), with repentance (Jas 4:8-10), with Christ’s leaving the 12 (Mt 9:15), with deep spirituality (5:4), as well as with death (Mk 5:38-39; Lk 7:13; Jn 11:33).<\/p>\n<p>True, the overthrow of death by Jesus Christ robbed death of its sting and the grave of its victory (1 Cor 15:54-57), but the Christian still mourns, though not as those who have no hope (1 Thes 4:13; Rv 21:4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Burial, Burial Customs; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MOURNING<\/h3>\n<p>Established ritual for grieving, observed by a dead person’s relatives and friends. It began with the closing of the eyes of the dead (Gn 46:4), the embracing of the body (50:1), and its preparation for burial. The hot climate necessitated that burial take place immediately (Acts 5:1-10). But detailed information about burial earlier than NT times (Mt 27:59; Jn 11:44; 19:39-40) is extremely meager. Excavations suggest that the dead were buried fully clothed but not in coffins. The Israelites practiced neither embalming nor cremation, but decent burial was essential.<\/p>\n<p>At the news of a death, it was customary to tear one’s garments (Gn 37:34; 2 Sm 1:11; Jb 1:20), put on sackcloth (2 Sm 3:31), and take off one’s shoes (2 Sm 15:30; Mi 1:8) and headdress; a man might cover his beard or veil his face (Ez 24:17, 23). Mourners put earth on their heads (Jos 7:6; 1 Sm 4:12; Neh 9:1; Jb 2:12; Ez 27:30) or rolled themselves in the dust (Jb 16:15; Mi 1:10) or sat on a heap of ashes (Est 4:3; Is 58:5; Jer 6:26; Ez 27:30). Such mourning rites as shaving the hair and the beard and making cuts on the body (Jb 1:20; Is 22:12; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; Ez 7:18; Am 8:10) were condemned (Lv 19:27-28; Dt 14:1) because of pagan associations. Mourners refrained from washing and discontinued the use of perfumes (2 Sm 12:20; 14:2).<\/p>\n<p>Fasting was also a mourning rite (1 Sm 31:13; 2 Sm 1:12). Neighbors or friends brought mourning bread and the “cup of consolation” to the relatives of the deceased (Jer 16:7; Ez 24:17, 22). Food could not be prepared at the house of the dead because death rendered a place unclean. The dead were unclean to the extent that a priest could “profane” himself by taking part in mourning rites, except for his nearest blood relatives (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister, provided she was still a virgin; Lv 21:1-4, 10-11). These mourning rites were not acts of worship directed toward the dead, nor did they constitute a cult for the dead, but rather they were expressions of grief and affection.<\/p>\n<p>At the graveside, lamentation for the dead was made (1 Kgs 13:30; Jer 6:26; Am 5:16; 8:10; Zec 12:10) by men and women in separate groups (Zec 12:11-14). These exclamations of sorrow might develop into a rhythmic lament (2 Sm 1:17-27; Am 8:10). However, professional mourners, men and especially women (Jer 9:17-19; Am 5:16), were employed. The book of Lamentations is a fine example of laments and is a reminder that among Jews mourning was not always associated with death. It expressed brokenness of spirit for sin, individual and national. National calamity also evoked great lamentation.<\/p>\n<p>These mourning rites were expressive of great grief. But some of them—tearing clothes, wearing sackcloth, disfiguring oneself with dust and ashes, self-mutilation—point to paroxysms of grief, the religious significance of which now escapes us. This was far removed from mourning as an inner feeling or a mood of the mind. It was not just an involuntary outburst of feeling but rather a deliberate, established ritual. When death occurred, the Israelite wept because it was customary and seemly. The erection of monuments or memorials was not unknown (2 Sm 18:18), but the average Israelite was too poor for this to be a common practice.<\/p>\n<p>Mourning practices in NT times differed little from those described in the OT. Mourning was associated with Christ’s second advent (Mt 24:30), with repentance (Jas 4:8-10), with Christ’s leaving the 12 (Mt 9:15), with deep spirituality (5:4), as well as with death (Mk 5:38-39; Lk 7:13; Jn 11:33).<\/p>\n<p>True, the overthrow of death by Jesus Christ robbed death of its sting and the grave of its victory (1 Cor 15:54-57), but the Christian still mourns, though not as those who have no hope (1 Thes 4:13; Rv 21:4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Burial, Burial Customs; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MOURNING Established ritual for grieving, observed by a dead person’s relatives and friends. It began with the closing of the eyes of the dead (Gn 46:4), the embracing of the body (50:1), and its preparation for burial. The hot climate necessitated that burial take place immediately (Acts 5:1-10). But detailed information about burial earlier than NT times (Mt 27:59; Jn 11:44; 19:39-40) is extremely meager. Excavations suggest that the dead were buried fully clothed but not in coffins. The Is...","summary_en":"MOURNING Established ritual for grieving, observed by a dead person’s relatives and friends. It began with the closing of the eyes of the dead (Gn 46:4), the embracing of the body (50:1), and its preparation for burial. The hot climate necessitated that burial take place immediately (Acts 5:1-10). But detailed information about burial earlier than NT times (Mt 27:59; Jn 11:44; 19:39-40) is extremely meager. Excavations suggest that the dead were buried fully clothed but not in coffins. The Is...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44314,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","summary_en":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44315,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","summary_en":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71940,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","summary_en":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71941,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","summary_en":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99566,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","summary_en":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99567,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","summary_en":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127192,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1–22:33<\/strong> This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase <em>I am the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> who makes . . . holy<\/em> (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","summary_en":"21:1–22:33 This section, which covers priestly regulations, is punctuated six times with the phrase I am the Lord who makes . . . holy (21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32; cp. 21:8). The words reaffirm the necessary connection between the holiness of God and the holiness expected of the priesthood, and by extension, of all Israel (see 8:10; 11:44-45; 19:2). Priests are specifically addressed in 21:1–22:16, while both clergy and laity are included in 22:17-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127193,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:1","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:1-4<\/strong> Touching a <em>dead body<\/em> rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his <em>closest relatives<\/em> because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","summary_en":"21:1-4 Touching a dead body rendered a person unclean for seven days. Because a priest had to be prepared to deal with holy things at all times, he was not allowed to handle a dead body, even of a relative, or else he could be unfit to minister when needed. The only exceptions were his closest relatives because there might not be anyone else who could bury the bodies.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60399,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88025,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115651,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143277,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":3555,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baldness","title_en":"Baldness","content_ro":"<h3>BALDNESS<\/h3>\n<p>Condition of having little or no hair on the scalp. Natural baldness due to age is referred to only indirectly in the Bible, where it is contrasted with baldness due to leprosy (Lv 13:40-42). The Israelites were forbidden to shave their heads or shape their beard in ways that resembled pagan religious practices (Dt 14:1). Such restrictions applied particularly to Israelite priests (Lv 21:5). Shaving off the hair and offering it as a sacrifice to God was a special act prescribed for men or women taking a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:1-5, 18; Acts 18:18).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptians and other peoples shaved off their hair (and eyebrows) as a sign of respect for the dead. There are many biblical references to the non-Israelite custom of shaving the head as a sign of mourning or anguish (Jer 16:6; 48:37; Ez 27:31; Mi 1:16). Most of these passages speak of God’s judgment against pagan cities or nations. Since baldness was associated primarily with leprosy, venereal disease, idolatry, or death, the prediction or threat of baldness sometimes accompanied prophetic warnings (Is 3:16-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BALDNESS<\/h3>\n<p>Condition of having little or no hair on the scalp. Natural baldness due to age is referred to only indirectly in the Bible, where it is contrasted with baldness due to leprosy (Lv 13:40-42). The Israelites were forbidden to shave their heads or shape their beard in ways that resembled pagan religious practices (Dt 14:1). Such restrictions applied particularly to Israelite priests (Lv 21:5). Shaving off the hair and offering it as a sacrifice to God was a special act prescribed for men or women taking a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:1-5, 18; Acts 18:18).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptians and other peoples shaved off their hair (and eyebrows) as a sign of respect for the dead. There are many biblical references to the non-Israelite custom of shaving the head as a sign of mourning or anguish (Jer 16:6; 48:37; Ez 27:31; Mi 1:16). Most of these passages speak of God’s judgment against pagan cities or nations. Since baldness was associated primarily with leprosy, venereal disease, idolatry, or death, the prediction or threat of baldness sometimes accompanied prophetic warnings (Is 3:16-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BALDNESS Condition of having little or no hair on the scalp. Natural baldness due to age is referred to only indirectly in the Bible, where it is contrasted with baldness due to leprosy (Lv 13:40-42). The Israelites were forbidden to shave their heads or shape their beard in ways that resembled pagan religious practices (Dt 14:1). Such restrictions applied particularly to Israelite priests (Lv 21:5). Shaving off the hair and offering it as a sacrifice to God was a special act prescribed for m...","summary_en":"BALDNESS Condition of having little or no hair on the scalp. Natural baldness due to age is referred to only indirectly in the Bible, where it is contrasted with baldness due to leprosy (Lv 13:40-42). The Israelites were forbidden to shave their heads or shape their beard in ways that resembled pagan religious practices (Dt 14:1). Such restrictions applied particularly to Israelite priests (Lv 21:5). Shaving off the hair and offering it as a sacrifice to God was a special act prescribed for m...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4008,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beard","title_en":"Beard","content_ro":"<h3>BEARD<\/h3>\n<p>Hair growing on the lower part of a man’s face, worn as a sign of maturity among all ancient Semitic peoples, including the Israelites. Among the Israelites, care of the beard took on religious significance (Lv 19:27). Levitical law prohibited priests from shaving their heads or clipping their beards (21:5-6). David’s ambassadors to an Ammonite king were humiliated by having one side of their beards shaved off by the Ammonites. That indignity and others led to war (2 Sm 10:1-8). Removal of an Israelite’s beard, however, was considered appropriate under certain circumstances. Suspicion of leprosy on the head or face required shaving around the suspected spot to permit better diagnosis (Lv 13:29-37). A shaven head, along with wailing and the wearing of sackcloth, was a way of proclaiming impending or prevailing doom (Is 15:1-3). Ezra dramatized Israel’s spiritual disaster by pulling hair out of his head and beard (Ezr 9:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BEARD<\/h3>\n<p>Hair growing on the lower part of a man’s face, worn as a sign of maturity among all ancient Semitic peoples, including the Israelites. Among the Israelites, care of the beard took on religious significance (Lv 19:27). Levitical law prohibited priests from shaving their heads or clipping their beards (21:5-6). David’s ambassadors to an Ammonite king were humiliated by having one side of their beards shaved off by the Ammonites. That indignity and others led to war (2 Sm 10:1-8). Removal of an Israelite’s beard, however, was considered appropriate under certain circumstances. Suspicion of leprosy on the head or face required shaving around the suspected spot to permit better diagnosis (Lv 13:29-37). A shaven head, along with wailing and the wearing of sackcloth, was a way of proclaiming impending or prevailing doom (Is 15:1-3). Ezra dramatized Israel’s spiritual disaster by pulling hair out of his head and beard (Ezr 9:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BEARD Hair growing on the lower part of a man’s face, worn as a sign of maturity among all ancient Semitic peoples, including the Israelites. Among the Israelites, care of the beard took on religious significance (Lv 19:27). Levitical law prohibited priests from shaving their heads or clipping their beards (21:5-6). David’s ambassadors to an Ammonite king were humiliated by having one side of their beards shaved off by the Ammonites. That indignity and others led to war (2 Sm 10:1-8). Removal...","summary_en":"BEARD Hair growing on the lower part of a man’s face, worn as a sign of maturity among all ancient Semitic peoples, including the Israelites. Among the Israelites, care of the beard took on religious significance (Lv 19:27). Levitical law prohibited priests from shaving their heads or clipping their beards (21:5-6). David’s ambassadors to an Ammonite king were humiliated by having one side of their beards shaved off by the Ammonites. That indignity and others led to war (2 Sm 10:1-8). Removal...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44316,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","summary_en":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71942,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","summary_en":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99568,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","summary_en":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127194,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:5","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:5<\/strong> <em>shave . . . trim:<\/em> See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • <em>cut their bodies:<\/em> See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (see Lev 21:22). On the other hand, uncleanness disqualified any priest from ministry and from eating the priest’s share as long as the condition persisted (22:2-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","summary_en":"21:5 shave . . . trim: See study notes on 10:6; 19:27. • cut their bodies: See study note on 19:28. Self-mutilation was a pagan custom. Just as defects of any kind precluded most animals as offerings (22:19-25), a defect similarly precluded a priest from officiating (see 21:17-23). For example, a eunuch could not serve as a priest (Deut 23:1) because he was not an adequate representative of the people. However, his priestly lineage was recognized as qualifying him to eat his priestly share (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":44317,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","summary_en":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71943,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","summary_en":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99569,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","summary_en":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127195,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:6","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:6<\/strong> A priest should <em>never bring shame<\/em> by profaning God’s name.<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","summary_en":"21:6 A priest should never bring shame by profaning God’s name.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":31314,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38026,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Virgin","title_en":"Virgin","content_ro":"<h3>VIRGIN<\/h3>\n<p>Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25).<\/p>\n<p>The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s standards, must marry only virgins (Lv 21:7, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly this reflects the whole Bible’s teaching on marriage, with its ideal of exclusive faithfulness. The NT expresses that ideal by its ban on premarital intercourse (1 Cor 6:13, 18), and by its use of “virgin” language to describe Christians who remain faithful to their Lord (Rv 14:4; cf. 2 Cor 11:2).<\/p>\n<p>Negatively, the OT highlights the same principle in the penalties it lays down for the loss of a woman’s virginity. If the man is morally responsible, he must either marry her or compensate her father (Ex 22:16-17). If the woman herself is to blame, the punishment is death (Dt 22:20-21). The OT says little, however, to commend lifelong virginity. Jeremiah was told not to marry, only to reinforce God’s warning of coming judgment (Jer 16:2). From the woman’s point of view, it was a tragedy to remain an unmarried virgin and therefore childless for life (cf. Jgs 11:37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes the value of marriage but brings out more clearly the advantages of a commitment to virginity for Christian men as well as women. Celibacy for some is God’s gift, declared Paul, because it has positive gains for Christian service (1 Cor 7:7, 25-38). Jesus commended those who “make themselves eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Mt 19:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin Birth of Jesus; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>VIRGIN<\/h3>\n<p>Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25).<\/p>\n<p>The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s standards, must marry only virgins (Lv 21:7, 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Undoubtedly this reflects the whole Bible’s teaching on marriage, with its ideal of exclusive faithfulness. The NT expresses that ideal by its ban on premarital intercourse (1 Cor 6:13, 18), and by its use of “virgin” language to describe Christians who remain faithful to their Lord (Rv 14:4; cf. 2 Cor 11:2).<\/p>\n<p>Negatively, the OT highlights the same principle in the penalties it lays down for the loss of a woman’s virginity. If the man is morally responsible, he must either marry her or compensate her father (Ex 22:16-17). If the woman herself is to blame, the punishment is death (Dt 22:20-21). The OT says little, however, to commend lifelong virginity. Jeremiah was told not to marry, only to reinforce God’s warning of coming judgment (Jer 16:2). From the woman’s point of view, it was a tragedy to remain an unmarried virgin and therefore childless for life (cf. Jgs 11:37).<\/p>\n<p>The NT echoes the value of marriage but brings out more clearly the advantages of a commitment to virginity for Christian men as well as women. Celibacy for some is God’s gift, declared Paul, because it has positive gains for Christian service (1 Cor 7:7, 25-38). Jesus commended those who “make themselves eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (Mt 19:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin Birth of Jesus; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"VIRGIN Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25). The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s sta...","summary_en":"VIRGIN Word used only of women and (metaphorically) of places, nations, and the church. Literally, it describes a woman who has reached physical maturity but has not experienced sexual intercourse. Mary, mother of Jesus, is an obvious example (Mt 1:18-25). The OT puts a high value on premarital virginity. One of Rebekah’s qualities that made her a suitable bride for Isaac was her virginity (Gn 24:16). The law prescribed that priests, as men whose lives should conform most closely to God’s sta...","source":"Articles\/V.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44318,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:7","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","summary_en":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71944,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:7","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","summary_en":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99570,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:7","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","summary_en":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127196,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:7","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:7<\/strong> The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","summary_en":"21:7 The priest, to lead Israel in worship, had to model the highest standard of conduct for the people both in his personal life and in leadership of his family. He could have no ties to pagan culture (prostitution, 21:9), nor could the legitimacy of his family be questioned (divorce). Similar standards applied to leaders of the early church (1 Tim 3:1-13).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":5848,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Customs* Burial, Burial","title_en":"Customs* Burial, Burial","content_ro":"<h3>BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS*<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GravesandTombs\">Graves and Tombs<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews, location of burial plots was generally determined on a family basis. The OT contains many references to an Israelite’s desire to be buried in the family burying place, describing his death as “going to his fathers” (Gn 15:15; 1 Kgs 13:22).<\/p>\n<p>The cave of Machpelah at Hebron was one example of family “cohabitation” of a tomb for a succession of generations. Abraham purchased the site from Ephron the Hittite at the time of Sarah’s death (Gn 23). When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael laid his body in the same tomb (25:9), and there Jacob in turn buried his parents, Isaac and Rebekah, as well as Jacob’s wife Leah (49:31). After his death, Jacob’s body was buried with his father’s in accord with his own request (49:29; 50:13). Jacob’s son Joseph made his kinsmen promise that his remains would be preserved so they could be carried back to the homeland when God enabled his people to return from Egypt (50:25). Samuel is spoken of as being buried in his house at Ramah, evidently referring to a family graveyard plot (1 Sm 25:1). Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1 Kgs 2:34). King Manasseh was buried in the garden of his palace (2 Kgs 21:18), and Joshua in his own inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:30). Kings were careful to perpetuate their memory by special burial sites, often in the City of David (the part of Jerusalem on the southeastern ridge first occupied by that great king). King Josiah designated his burial place in advance, most likely an ancestral tomb (2 Kgs 23:30).<\/p>\n<p>Individual burial sites, such as that of Deborah near Bethel (Gn 35:8) and of Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gn 35:1, 20), were an exception necessitated by sudden death at some distance from the family tomb.<\/p>\n<p>Bodies were buried in tombs, that is, natural caves or rock-hewn sepulchers, such as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea where the body of Jesus was laid (Mt 27:59-60). They were also buried in shallow graves covered with rock heaps, serving both to mark them and to prevent desecration of the body by animals.<\/p>\n<p>Some graves were marked by a monument erected in love (Gn 35:20) and honor (2 Kgs 23:17), but stones were sometimes heaped on a dishonorable burial place, as in the case of Achan (Jos 7:26) and Absalom (2 Sm 18:17). Tombs were often adorned or embellished, sometimes whitewashed, in part to warn against ceremonial contamination prohibited by Mosaic law. Jesus spoke of such embellishment in a rebuke of the Pharisees (Mt 23:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TreatmentoftheCorpse\">Treatment of the Corpse<\/p>\n<p>The assurance given by God to Jacob that “Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” (Gn 46:4, <span>rsv<\/span>) probably alludes to the custom of a near relative closing the eyes of one who died with a fixed stare. Close relatives might also literally embrace and kiss the body immediately upon expiration. The body was washed and dressed in the deceased one’s clothing. Pins and other ornaments found in excavated tombs are evidence that the dead were buried fully clothed. Soldiers were buried in full regalia, with shields covering or cradling the armored bodies, their swords under their heads (Ez 32:27).<\/p>\n<p>Embalming was not a usual practice in Israel. Egyptian treatment for Jacob and Joseph was the exception rather than the rule. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Egyptians commenced embalming procedures by removing the brain from the cranium through the nasal apertures, piecemeal, using a long curved hook. When this had been done, the cranial cavity was rinsed out with a mixture of resins and spices. The corpse was eviscerated, and the entrails were placed in four canopic jars. The body was soaked in a solution of natron for a period of from 40 to 80 days, depending on the cost of the burial. At the time of interment, the corpse was wrapped in strips of fine linen cloth from head to foot and put in an anthropoid coffin. The canopic jars were placed in the tomb along with the body, symbolizing the reuniting of the personality and its survival after death.<\/p>\n<p>Cremation of the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sm 31:12-13) was also an exception to normal practice. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that in contrast with Roman custom, Jewish piety required the burying rather than burning of dead bodies. Under Mosaic law such burning was reserved as a sentence of judgment (Lv 21:9; Jos 7:25).<\/p>\n<p>After preparation of the body, it was carried on a bier (a simple frame with carrying poles) without being placed in a coffin. The body was laid either in a prepared niche in the wall of a rock-hewn chamber or directly in a shallow grave dug in a burial plot. Neither bier nor any form of casket entered the pit with the corpse. The spices used as a perfume and temporary deterrent to decay cannot properly be considered an attempt at embalming (Mk 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>As we know from the Gospel record of Jesus’ burial, some cave tombs had a seal at the doorway, either a hinged wooden door or a flat stone shaped so it could be rolled into place. Such a stone seal could be reopened only with extreme effort (Mk 15:46; 16:3-4). By NT times the Jews sometimes economized on the use of a family tomb by placing the dry bones of formerly buried relatives in ossuaries. These boxlike receptacles were probably an adaptation of chests used by the Romans for holding ashes after a cremation.<\/p>\n<p>Under Mosaic legislation, ceremonial defilement was contracted either through physical contact with the corpse or by participation in the formalities of mourning. Especially stringent prohibitions applied to the priests of Israel. The high priest himself could have nothing at all to do with mourning. In particular, he “must never defile himself by going near a dead person, even if it is his father or mother. He must not desecrate the sanctuary of his God by leaving it to attend his parents’ funeral, because he has been made holy by the anointing oil of his God” (Lv 21:10-12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Although the customs and procedures were evidently modified little from OT to NT times, some added details are given in the NT record. For example, it is noted that the corpse was washed (Acts 9:37). The body was then anointed and wrapped in linen cloths with spices enclosed (Mk 16:1; Jn 19:40). Finally, the limbs were tightly bound and the head covered with a separate piece of cloth (Jn 11:44).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS*<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GravesandTombs\">Graves and Tombs<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews, location of burial plots was generally determined on a family basis. The OT contains many references to an Israelite’s desire to be buried in the family burying place, describing his death as “going to his fathers” (Gn 15:15; 1 Kgs 13:22).<\/p>\n<p>The cave of Machpelah at Hebron was one example of family “cohabitation” of a tomb for a succession of generations. Abraham purchased the site from Ephron the Hittite at the time of Sarah’s death (Gn 23). When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael laid his body in the same tomb (25:9), and there Jacob in turn buried his parents, Isaac and Rebekah, as well as Jacob’s wife Leah (49:31). After his death, Jacob’s body was buried with his father’s in accord with his own request (49:29; 50:13). Jacob’s son Joseph made his kinsmen promise that his remains would be preserved so they could be carried back to the homeland when God enabled his people to return from Egypt (50:25). Samuel is spoken of as being buried in his house at Ramah, evidently referring to a family graveyard plot (1 Sm 25:1). Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1 Kgs 2:34). King Manasseh was buried in the garden of his palace (2 Kgs 21:18), and Joshua in his own inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:30). Kings were careful to perpetuate their memory by special burial sites, often in the City of David (the part of Jerusalem on the southeastern ridge first occupied by that great king). King Josiah designated his burial place in advance, most likely an ancestral tomb (2 Kgs 23:30).<\/p>\n<p>Individual burial sites, such as that of Deborah near Bethel (Gn 35:8) and of Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gn 35:1, 20), were an exception necessitated by sudden death at some distance from the family tomb.<\/p>\n<p>Bodies were buried in tombs, that is, natural caves or rock-hewn sepulchers, such as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea where the body of Jesus was laid (Mt 27:59-60). They were also buried in shallow graves covered with rock heaps, serving both to mark them and to prevent desecration of the body by animals.<\/p>\n<p>Some graves were marked by a monument erected in love (Gn 35:20) and honor (2 Kgs 23:17), but stones were sometimes heaped on a dishonorable burial place, as in the case of Achan (Jos 7:26) and Absalom (2 Sm 18:17). Tombs were often adorned or embellished, sometimes whitewashed, in part to warn against ceremonial contamination prohibited by Mosaic law. Jesus spoke of such embellishment in a rebuke of the Pharisees (Mt 23:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TreatmentoftheCorpse\">Treatment of the Corpse<\/p>\n<p>The assurance given by God to Jacob that “Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” (Gn 46:4, <span>rsv<\/span>) probably alludes to the custom of a near relative closing the eyes of one who died with a fixed stare. Close relatives might also literally embrace and kiss the body immediately upon expiration. The body was washed and dressed in the deceased one’s clothing. Pins and other ornaments found in excavated tombs are evidence that the dead were buried fully clothed. Soldiers were buried in full regalia, with shields covering or cradling the armored bodies, their swords under their heads (Ez 32:27).<\/p>\n<p>Embalming was not a usual practice in Israel. Egyptian treatment for Jacob and Joseph was the exception rather than the rule. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Egyptians commenced embalming procedures by removing the brain from the cranium through the nasal apertures, piecemeal, using a long curved hook. When this had been done, the cranial cavity was rinsed out with a mixture of resins and spices. The corpse was eviscerated, and the entrails were placed in four canopic jars. The body was soaked in a solution of natron for a period of from 40 to 80 days, depending on the cost of the burial. At the time of interment, the corpse was wrapped in strips of fine linen cloth from head to foot and put in an anthropoid coffin. The canopic jars were placed in the tomb along with the body, symbolizing the reuniting of the personality and its survival after death.<\/p>\n<p>Cremation of the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sm 31:12-13) was also an exception to normal practice. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that in contrast with Roman custom, Jewish piety required the burying rather than burning of dead bodies. Under Mosaic law such burning was reserved as a sentence of judgment (Lv 21:9; Jos 7:25).<\/p>\n<p>After preparation of the body, it was carried on a bier (a simple frame with carrying poles) without being placed in a coffin. The body was laid either in a prepared niche in the wall of a rock-hewn chamber or directly in a shallow grave dug in a burial plot. Neither bier nor any form of casket entered the pit with the corpse. The spices used as a perfume and temporary deterrent to decay cannot properly be considered an attempt at embalming (Mk 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>As we know from the Gospel record of Jesus’ burial, some cave tombs had a seal at the doorway, either a hinged wooden door or a flat stone shaped so it could be rolled into place. Such a stone seal could be reopened only with extreme effort (Mk 15:46; 16:3-4). By NT times the Jews sometimes economized on the use of a family tomb by placing the dry bones of formerly buried relatives in ossuaries. These boxlike receptacles were probably an adaptation of chests used by the Romans for holding ashes after a cremation.<\/p>\n<p>Under Mosaic legislation, ceremonial defilement was contracted either through physical contact with the corpse or by participation in the formalities of mourning. Especially stringent prohibitions applied to the priests of Israel. The high priest himself could have nothing at all to do with mourning. In particular, he “must never defile himself by going near a dead person, even if it is his father or mother. He must not desecrate the sanctuary of his God by leaving it to attend his parents’ funeral, because he has been made holy by the anointing oil of his God” (Lv 21:10-12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Although the customs and procedures were evidently modified little from OT to NT times, some added details are given in the NT record. For example, it is noted that the corpse was washed (Acts 9:37). The body was then anointed and wrapped in linen cloths with spices enclosed (Mk 16:1; Jn 19:40). Finally, the limbs were tightly bound and the head covered with a separate piece of cloth (Jn 11:44).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS* The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before. Graves and Tombs Among the ...","summary_en":"BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS* The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before. Graves and Tombs Among the ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8128,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31766,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prostitution Prostitute","title_en":"Prostitution Prostitute","content_ro":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION<\/h3>\n<p>Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forbidden by the law of Moses (Lv 19:29; 21:9). The “strange woman” was another kind of prostitute (1 Kgs 11:1; Prv 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; 23:27). There are different opinions for why that name was given to prostitutes. One explanation is that it referred to a man leaving his own wife for another, who ought to be a stranger to him (Prv 5:17-20). It may also have referred to a foreign woman (Nm 25:1; Jos 23:13). “Prostitute” also refers to any woman, married or single, who practices unlawful sexual indulgence, whether for lust or monetary gain (Mt 21:31-32; Lk 15:30; 1 Cor 6:15-16; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).<\/p>\n<p>Prostitution appeared early in Israel’s life and continued throughout biblical history. Most biblical passages strongly condemn the practice of prostitution in any form. The priestly law of Leviticus 21:9 provided that a priest’s daughter who practiced prostitution was to be burned to death. A priest could not marry a prostitute (Lv 19:29), and the wages of prostitution could not be used to pay vows in the temple (Dt 23:18). These prohibitions served to keep the worship of the Lord free from the practice of cult prostitution.<\/p>\n<p>The sons of Jacob killed Hamor and his son Shechem, justifying their act by saying: “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?” (Gn 34:31, <span>nlt<\/span>). Amaziah’s wife was to become a prostitute (Am 7:17) as punishment for his treatment of the prophet Amos.<\/p>\n<p>In the first century, prostitutes and tax collectors were equally detested by the Jews (Mt 21:32). According to Paul, the body of a Christian belongs to Christ and should not be joined to a prostitute’s body (1 Cor 6:15-16). Proverbs is replete with warnings to those who would go in to prostitutes.<\/p>\n<p>A few biblical passages do, however, seem to accept the prostitute as a member of the community. Tamar temporarily served as a prostitute to remind her father-in-law of his promise to her (Gn 38:14-15). Rahab the prostitute had a special place in Hebrew history because she had befriended the Hebrew spies (Jos 2:4-16; Heb 11:31).<\/p>\n<p>The words “prostitute” and “prostitution” were used figuratively for idolatry, especially in the prophetic books (Jer 2:20; Rv 17:1, 5, 15-16; 19:2). This figurative use was based on the marriagelike relationship of the Lord and his people (Jer 3:20). When the people gave their allegiance to idols rather than to God, he charged that they were prostitutes for other gods (Jgs 8:33). The same idea is found in the NT (Rv 17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","summary_en":"PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION Person guilty of illicit sexual relationships; figuratively, one who worships an idol. The term “prostitute” translates four different words found in the Bible. One type of prostitute was the man or woman, married or unmarried, who committed immoral acts (Gn 34:31; Jgs 19:2; Prv 23:27). A different kind of prostitute was the temple prostitute of heathen religions in which fornication was part of the worship (Gn 38:21-22; Dt 23:17; Hos 4:14). Such prostitution was forb...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":5853,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Customs* Burial, Burial","title_en":"Customs* Burial, Burial","content_ro":"<h3>BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS*<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GravesandTombs\">Graves and Tombs<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews, location of burial plots was generally determined on a family basis. The OT contains many references to an Israelite’s desire to be buried in the family burying place, describing his death as “going to his fathers” (Gn 15:15; 1 Kgs 13:22).<\/p>\n<p>The cave of Machpelah at Hebron was one example of family “cohabitation” of a tomb for a succession of generations. Abraham purchased the site from Ephron the Hittite at the time of Sarah’s death (Gn 23). When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael laid his body in the same tomb (25:9), and there Jacob in turn buried his parents, Isaac and Rebekah, as well as Jacob’s wife Leah (49:31). After his death, Jacob’s body was buried with his father’s in accord with his own request (49:29; 50:13). Jacob’s son Joseph made his kinsmen promise that his remains would be preserved so they could be carried back to the homeland when God enabled his people to return from Egypt (50:25). Samuel is spoken of as being buried in his house at Ramah, evidently referring to a family graveyard plot (1 Sm 25:1). Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1 Kgs 2:34). King Manasseh was buried in the garden of his palace (2 Kgs 21:18), and Joshua in his own inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:30). Kings were careful to perpetuate their memory by special burial sites, often in the City of David (the part of Jerusalem on the southeastern ridge first occupied by that great king). King Josiah designated his burial place in advance, most likely an ancestral tomb (2 Kgs 23:30).<\/p>\n<p>Individual burial sites, such as that of Deborah near Bethel (Gn 35:8) and of Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gn 35:1, 20), were an exception necessitated by sudden death at some distance from the family tomb.<\/p>\n<p>Bodies were buried in tombs, that is, natural caves or rock-hewn sepulchers, such as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea where the body of Jesus was laid (Mt 27:59-60). They were also buried in shallow graves covered with rock heaps, serving both to mark them and to prevent desecration of the body by animals.<\/p>\n<p>Some graves were marked by a monument erected in love (Gn 35:20) and honor (2 Kgs 23:17), but stones were sometimes heaped on a dishonorable burial place, as in the case of Achan (Jos 7:26) and Absalom (2 Sm 18:17). Tombs were often adorned or embellished, sometimes whitewashed, in part to warn against ceremonial contamination prohibited by Mosaic law. Jesus spoke of such embellishment in a rebuke of the Pharisees (Mt 23:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TreatmentoftheCorpse\">Treatment of the Corpse<\/p>\n<p>The assurance given by God to Jacob that “Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” (Gn 46:4, <span>rsv<\/span>) probably alludes to the custom of a near relative closing the eyes of one who died with a fixed stare. Close relatives might also literally embrace and kiss the body immediately upon expiration. The body was washed and dressed in the deceased one’s clothing. Pins and other ornaments found in excavated tombs are evidence that the dead were buried fully clothed. Soldiers were buried in full regalia, with shields covering or cradling the armored bodies, their swords under their heads (Ez 32:27).<\/p>\n<p>Embalming was not a usual practice in Israel. Egyptian treatment for Jacob and Joseph was the exception rather than the rule. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Egyptians commenced embalming procedures by removing the brain from the cranium through the nasal apertures, piecemeal, using a long curved hook. When this had been done, the cranial cavity was rinsed out with a mixture of resins and spices. The corpse was eviscerated, and the entrails were placed in four canopic jars. The body was soaked in a solution of natron for a period of from 40 to 80 days, depending on the cost of the burial. At the time of interment, the corpse was wrapped in strips of fine linen cloth from head to foot and put in an anthropoid coffin. The canopic jars were placed in the tomb along with the body, symbolizing the reuniting of the personality and its survival after death.<\/p>\n<p>Cremation of the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sm 31:12-13) was also an exception to normal practice. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that in contrast with Roman custom, Jewish piety required the burying rather than burning of dead bodies. Under Mosaic law such burning was reserved as a sentence of judgment (Lv 21:9; Jos 7:25).<\/p>\n<p>After preparation of the body, it was carried on a bier (a simple frame with carrying poles) without being placed in a coffin. The body was laid either in a prepared niche in the wall of a rock-hewn chamber or directly in a shallow grave dug in a burial plot. Neither bier nor any form of casket entered the pit with the corpse. The spices used as a perfume and temporary deterrent to decay cannot properly be considered an attempt at embalming (Mk 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>As we know from the Gospel record of Jesus’ burial, some cave tombs had a seal at the doorway, either a hinged wooden door or a flat stone shaped so it could be rolled into place. Such a stone seal could be reopened only with extreme effort (Mk 15:46; 16:3-4). By NT times the Jews sometimes economized on the use of a family tomb by placing the dry bones of formerly buried relatives in ossuaries. These boxlike receptacles were probably an adaptation of chests used by the Romans for holding ashes after a cremation.<\/p>\n<p>Under Mosaic legislation, ceremonial defilement was contracted either through physical contact with the corpse or by participation in the formalities of mourning. Especially stringent prohibitions applied to the priests of Israel. The high priest himself could have nothing at all to do with mourning. In particular, he “must never defile himself by going near a dead person, even if it is his father or mother. He must not desecrate the sanctuary of his God by leaving it to attend his parents’ funeral, because he has been made holy by the anointing oil of his God” (Lv 21:10-12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Although the customs and procedures were evidently modified little from OT to NT times, some added details are given in the NT record. For example, it is noted that the corpse was washed (Acts 9:37). The body was then anointed and wrapped in linen cloths with spices enclosed (Mk 16:1; Jn 19:40). Finally, the limbs were tightly bound and the head covered with a separate piece of cloth (Jn 11:44).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS*<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GravesandTombs\">Graves and Tombs<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews, location of burial plots was generally determined on a family basis. The OT contains many references to an Israelite’s desire to be buried in the family burying place, describing his death as “going to his fathers” (Gn 15:15; 1 Kgs 13:22).<\/p>\n<p>The cave of Machpelah at Hebron was one example of family “cohabitation” of a tomb for a succession of generations. Abraham purchased the site from Ephron the Hittite at the time of Sarah’s death (Gn 23). When Abraham died, Isaac and Ishmael laid his body in the same tomb (25:9), and there Jacob in turn buried his parents, Isaac and Rebekah, as well as Jacob’s wife Leah (49:31). After his death, Jacob’s body was buried with his father’s in accord with his own request (49:29; 50:13). Jacob’s son Joseph made his kinsmen promise that his remains would be preserved so they could be carried back to the homeland when God enabled his people to return from Egypt (50:25). Samuel is spoken of as being buried in his house at Ramah, evidently referring to a family graveyard plot (1 Sm 25:1). Joab was buried in his own house in the wilderness (1 Kgs 2:34). King Manasseh was buried in the garden of his palace (2 Kgs 21:18), and Joshua in his own inheritance at Timnath-serah (Jos 24:30). Kings were careful to perpetuate their memory by special burial sites, often in the City of David (the part of Jerusalem on the southeastern ridge first occupied by that great king). King Josiah designated his burial place in advance, most likely an ancestral tomb (2 Kgs 23:30).<\/p>\n<p>Individual burial sites, such as that of Deborah near Bethel (Gn 35:8) and of Rachel on the road to Ephrath (Gn 35:1, 20), were an exception necessitated by sudden death at some distance from the family tomb.<\/p>\n<p>Bodies were buried in tombs, that is, natural caves or rock-hewn sepulchers, such as that belonging to Joseph of Arimathea where the body of Jesus was laid (Mt 27:59-60). They were also buried in shallow graves covered with rock heaps, serving both to mark them and to prevent desecration of the body by animals.<\/p>\n<p>Some graves were marked by a monument erected in love (Gn 35:20) and honor (2 Kgs 23:17), but stones were sometimes heaped on a dishonorable burial place, as in the case of Achan (Jos 7:26) and Absalom (2 Sm 18:17). Tombs were often adorned or embellished, sometimes whitewashed, in part to warn against ceremonial contamination prohibited by Mosaic law. Jesus spoke of such embellishment in a rebuke of the Pharisees (Mt 23:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TreatmentoftheCorpse\">Treatment of the Corpse<\/p>\n<p>The assurance given by God to Jacob that “Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” (Gn 46:4, <span>rsv<\/span>) probably alludes to the custom of a near relative closing the eyes of one who died with a fixed stare. Close relatives might also literally embrace and kiss the body immediately upon expiration. The body was washed and dressed in the deceased one’s clothing. Pins and other ornaments found in excavated tombs are evidence that the dead were buried fully clothed. Soldiers were buried in full regalia, with shields covering or cradling the armored bodies, their swords under their heads (Ez 32:27).<\/p>\n<p>Embalming was not a usual practice in Israel. Egyptian treatment for Jacob and Joseph was the exception rather than the rule. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Egyptians commenced embalming procedures by removing the brain from the cranium through the nasal apertures, piecemeal, using a long curved hook. When this had been done, the cranial cavity was rinsed out with a mixture of resins and spices. The corpse was eviscerated, and the entrails were placed in four canopic jars. The body was soaked in a solution of natron for a period of from 40 to 80 days, depending on the cost of the burial. At the time of interment, the corpse was wrapped in strips of fine linen cloth from head to foot and put in an anthropoid coffin. The canopic jars were placed in the tomb along with the body, symbolizing the reuniting of the personality and its survival after death.<\/p>\n<p>Cremation of the bodies of Saul and his sons (1 Sm 31:12-13) was also an exception to normal practice. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote that in contrast with Roman custom, Jewish piety required the burying rather than burning of dead bodies. Under Mosaic law such burning was reserved as a sentence of judgment (Lv 21:9; Jos 7:25).<\/p>\n<p>After preparation of the body, it was carried on a bier (a simple frame with carrying poles) without being placed in a coffin. The body was laid either in a prepared niche in the wall of a rock-hewn chamber or directly in a shallow grave dug in a burial plot. Neither bier nor any form of casket entered the pit with the corpse. The spices used as a perfume and temporary deterrent to decay cannot properly be considered an attempt at embalming (Mk 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>As we know from the Gospel record of Jesus’ burial, some cave tombs had a seal at the doorway, either a hinged wooden door or a flat stone shaped so it could be rolled into place. Such a stone seal could be reopened only with extreme effort (Mk 15:46; 16:3-4). By NT times the Jews sometimes economized on the use of a family tomb by placing the dry bones of formerly buried relatives in ossuaries. These boxlike receptacles were probably an adaptation of chests used by the Romans for holding ashes after a cremation.<\/p>\n<p>Under Mosaic legislation, ceremonial defilement was contracted either through physical contact with the corpse or by participation in the formalities of mourning. Especially stringent prohibitions applied to the priests of Israel. The high priest himself could have nothing at all to do with mourning. In particular, he “must never defile himself by going near a dead person, even if it is his father or mother. He must not desecrate the sanctuary of his God by leaving it to attend his parents’ funeral, because he has been made holy by the anointing oil of his God” (Lv 21:10-12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Although the customs and procedures were evidently modified little from OT to NT times, some added details are given in the NT record. For example, it is noted that the corpse was washed (Acts 9:37). The body was then anointed and wrapped in linen cloths with spices enclosed (Mk 16:1; Jn 19:40). Finally, the limbs were tightly bound and the head covered with a separate piece of cloth (Jn 11:44).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Mourning; Funeral Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS* The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before. Graves and Tombs Among the ...","summary_en":"BURIAL, BURIAL CUSTOMS* The Bible makes frequent reference to burial practices. A society’s burial customs are a reflection of its views about death and the afterlife. The ancient Egyptians, for example, thought of life after death as a continuation of physical activities in another realm, as evidenced by their elaborately furnished tombs. The ancient Hebrews emphasized a more spiritual concept of union or fellowship of the departed with generations gone on before. Graves and Tombs Among the ...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6832,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Regulations concerning Cleanness and Uncleanness","title_en":"and Uncleanness, Regulations concerning, Cleanness","content_ro":"<h3>CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning<\/h3>\n<p>Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and personal lines—God’s personal nature being expressed in his giving of the law to Moses. The personal and uniquely consistent character of Israel’s Lord made him morally a completely different being from the many gods of pagan cultures. Unlike the Lord, the Baals of the Canaanites were capricious and vicious; nobody expected them to be ethically consistent. Israel’s Lord, on the other hand, could be trusted to keep his word (a verbal communication through his chosen prophets). Nobody, not even the high priest or the king, was above the law, which expressed not only God’s character but also his sovereign will for the individual and the nation. His moral consistency carried over into his miraculous interventions into history to protect his people, to judge them and their enemies, and to redeem humanity itself.<\/p>\n<p>Cleanness as defined in the book of Leviticus, therefore, was always conditioned by the presence of the personal God who gave the law. As the people sought to approach the Lord, they necessarily did so on his terms and therefore within the framework of the cultic ceremonies he had prescribed. Details of the Levitical ceremonies were designed to illustrate the moral implications of the sinner’s approach to God and God’s provision for his people to become morally clean in his sight.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the Levitical system was stated clearly in the psalmist’s words: “Who shall ascend the hill of the <span>Lord<\/span>? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully” (Ps 24:3-4, <span>rsv<\/span>). One’s state of cleanness depends not only on external actions but also on an internal relationship with God. As a result, the sinner’s inability to satisfy the moral demands of a holy God leads to his or her complete dependence on God and on God’s provision for satisfying his own demands. That provision was detailed in the law.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early History<\/p>\n<p>• Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<p>• Purification Rites<\/p>\n<p>• New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyHistory\">Early History<\/p>\n<h5>Gentile Religious Background<\/h5>\n<p>The gentile conscience was no doubt a strong influence on the development of ethnic notions of clean and unclean. The subjective sense of sin’s uncleanness is universally encountered in one form or another in the literature of every great religion, whatever explanation is given for it. Many religions have rites of purification based on water and washings. The Hebrews’ ritual avoidance of certain objects, some because of their holiness and others because of their unholiness, finds an analogy in the taboos of many primitive religions, including some of those with which the early Hebrews came into contact.<\/p>\n<p>The similarities between the Hebrew and other ancient religions are easily established by superficial comparison. It would be surprising if there were none. Those differences that give biblical religion its distinctive character, however, must be accounted for.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LeviticalPrescriptions\">Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<h5>Ceremonial and Moral Law<\/h5>\n<p>The relationship between the external ceremonial details of the Mosaic law and the internally directed moral requirements of such parts of it as the Ten Commandments is one of the fundamental issues of OT theology. It is possible to demonstrate that, throughout the OT, uncleanness and sin are virtually synonymous. In many passages sin is described as uncleanness (e.g., Lv 16:16, 30; the ordeal of the bitter water in Nm 5:11-28; Zec 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between ceremonial and moral cleanness can be illustrated from passages mentioning clean hands on the one hand (2 Sm 22:21; Jb 17:9; 22:30) and a clean heart on the other (Pss 24:4; 51:10; 73:13; Prv 20:9). The prophet Isaiah felt convicted of “unclean lips” when he was in God’s presence; a purifying coal, perhaps representing forgiveness and atonement, cleansed him (Is 6:5-7). In many passages cleanness represents innocence before God (Jb 11:4; 33:9; Ps 51:7-10; Prv 20:9), and uncleanness is said to come from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 64:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Causes of Uncleanness<\/h5>\n<p>From the Mosaic law a number of causes of uncleanness can be derived.<\/p>\n<p>1. Some foods were not to be eaten. Various laws concerning animals make a “distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten” (Lv 11:47, <span>rsv<\/span>). Permitted food was what was acceptable to God (see also Dt 14:3-21; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<li>2. Diseases, especially leprosy, produced an unclean state (Lv 13–14). The story of Naaman refers to leprous defilement (2 Kgs 5:1-14). The Gospels refer often to lepers (e.g., Mt 8:1-4; 10:8; 11:5; Lk 4:27). Many swellings, sores, and rashes were included under that heading, including Hansen’s disease (modern leprosy). The defilement of disease included all things touched by a diseased person (Lv 14:33-57).<\/li>\n<li>3. Bodily discharges were unclean, and contact with them defiled a person for various periods of time. Emission of semen produced uncleanness until the evening, whether in intercourse (Lv 15:16-18) or inadvertently during the night (Dt 23:10). An unnatural discharge, since it usually indicated disease, made a person unclean for seven days after it had ceased (Lv 15:1-15). Menstruation also produced uncleanness lasting seven days after it ceased (Lv 15:19-24; 2 Sm 11:4). Sexual intercourse during that time made both partners unclean (Lv 15:19-24; 20:18). Contact with the spittle of an unclean person produced uncleanness for a day (15:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Dead bodies, or even parts of them such as bone, caused uncleanness (Nm 19:16). Persons who touched a dead body were unclean for a month, and only after that period could they celebrate their own Passover if they had missed it (9:6-11). The high priest could not even bury his own parents because of his special ritual responsibilities (Lv 21:10-11; cf. Nm 6:6-7; Hg 2:13; Mt 23:27).<\/li>\n<li>5. Idolatry was the greatest source of spiritual defilement. The entire nation of Israel was defiled because of it (Ps 106:38; Is 30:22; Ez 36:25), as were the Gentiles (Jer 43:12). Consequently, contact with Gentiles was thought to produce defilement. The gospel’s universal appeal confronted that conviction (e.g., Jn 4:9; Acts 10:28; cf. Gal 2:11-14). Closely related to the defilement of idolatry was the defilement caused by unclean spirits (Zec 13:2; cf. Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23-27).<\/li>\n<h5>Laws about Objects<\/h5>\n<p>Certain laws illustrate the principle that uncleanness was transmitted much like a contagion. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched, as did dead insects and certain crawling things (Lv 11:29-38). It is interesting that dry grain, running springwater, and water in a cistern were expressly excluded from that law of contamination; perhaps otherwise, starvation would have resulted, dead insects and mice being found in grain and water every day in an agricultural community. Unclean pottery had to be broken, but wooden vessels merely required washing (Lv 15:12). Even uncovered pots in a house where a person had died became unclean (Nm 19:15); everyone who entered the house was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their idolatrous associations, the possessions of pagans were unclean; therefore, booty taken in war had to be cleansed by fire or washing (Nm 31:21-24). Clothing of wool, linen, or leather could contract unclean “leprosy” from diseased persons and had to be tested. If the leprous spots (greenish or reddish patches) spread after a test period, the garments had to be burned (Lv 13:47-59; 14:33-53).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Places<\/h5>\n<p>The land and people of Israel were holy; they could be defiled by the uncleanness of economic oppression or idolatry (Jos 22:17-19; Jer 13:27). Jerusalem was a holy city, but it could be defiled by the sins of its people (Ez 22:2-4; Lam 1:8) or by the blood of its slaughtered inhabitants (Lam 4:15).<\/p>\n<p>The temple could be defiled by unclean persons. It was necessary for Hezekiah to cleanse the temple after Ahaz’s idolatrous worship (2 Chr 29:15-19); Nehemiah had to cleanse the rooms in which Tobiah had been living (Neh 13:9). One of the functions of the Day of Atonement was removal of impurities transferred to the temple by the sins of the Israelites during the past year (Lv 16:16-19; 31-33).<\/p>\n<p>An unclean place received the pieces of a leprous house after its demolition (Lv 14:45). The valley of Hinnom became Jerusalem’s garbage dump in later years, giving rise to the visions of “Gehenna” as a place of eternal punishment in NT eschatology. Since the Israelite camp was a holy place, care was taken to bury human excrement outside its boundaries (Dt 23:12-14). The value of that simple expedient in preventing disease during military excursions can hardly be exaggerated, since plagues were a great scourge of ancient armies.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Food<\/h5>\n<p>Certain kinds of animals were unclean and thus could not be eaten (Lv 11; Dt 14:3-21). Animals that died of old age, disease, or injury, or had been wounded by predators, were unclean. Animals that did not both chew the cud and have a cloven hoof were unclean, a definition that included pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits among others. Israelites could eat only those fish that had both fins and scales. Birds of prey and scavengers were unclean. All winged insects were unclean except hopping insects (locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets). A large classification of “crawling things” was prohibited, including worms, lizards, snakes, weasels, and mice. In addition to all those was the ancient prohibition against eating blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:14-15; Dt 12:16-23; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurificationRites\">Purification Rites<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Lapse of Time<\/h5>\n<p>Secondary contamination could often be canceled simply by waiting until the evening (Lv 11:24) or for 7, 14, 40, or 80 days. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched for 7 days (Nm 19:11), as did menstruation (Lv 15:19). When a child was born, the mother’s unclean condition lasted 7 days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. An additional 33 days for a male child and 66 days for a female were required before the mother could touch any sacred thing.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Water<\/h5>\n<p>Contact with unclean things, such as bodily discharges, often required washing of hands and clothing, usually accompanied by the lapse of a day (Lv 15:5-11).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Ceremonial Substances<\/h5>\n<p>Ceremonial substances used in purification rites included the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water (Nm 19:1-10), and (in cases of leprosy) cedarwood, scarlet cloth, hyssop, and blood (Lv 14:2-9). When the altar was used in a purification ceremony, only blood was suitable, since the altar was the place of sacrifice for sin (Lv 16:18-19; Ez 43:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>Sacrifice was the ultimate source of both ritual and moral purification. All bodily discharges except sexual ones were purified by offerings of doves and pigeons (Lv 15:14-15, 29-30). Childbirth required a lamb and a bird (12:6). Poor people could offer birds in place of an animal (Lv 12:8; 14:21-32; Lk 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>In sacrifice, blood was symbolic of a life given and therefore a death experienced; the uncleanness of disease or sin was thought of as being transferred to the victim, thus removing the uncleanness (Lv 14:7). Sacrificial death, therefore, always had a substitutionary element. Only blood sacrifice could provide the moral cleansing necessary for sin itself; such sacrifice was therefore the basis of all cleansing, including that of disease.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Fire<\/h5>\n<p>Some contamination could be removed only by fire, such as contamination of metal pots (Nm 31:22-23). Incest was punishable not only by death but also by burning the bodies (Lv 20:14). Idolatry had to be put away by total destruction of the objects and by burning (Ex 32:20). Cities consecrated to pagan deities were to be burned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentPerspective\">New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The NT did not reject the OT concept of clean and unclean, but rather reinterpreted it in a new context. It stressed in particular the moral sense of the concept as well as the identification of uncleanness with sin.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels were written in the context of OT law and its Pharisaic and Sadducean accretions. Jesus obeyed the law but was often at odds with the practical casuistry (system) that had grown up around it. Jesus taught that true defilement came from the sinner’s heart and not from outside contamination (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41). A central element in his teaching was his attack on the ceremonial externalism of the Pharisees. Thus it has been said that Jesus “internalized” the law. It would be more correct to say that he forced attention to the law’s demands on people’s inner lives.<\/p>\n<p>The intrinsic wickedness of demons is underscored by the use of the term “unclean spirit” throughout the Gospels. In fact, the word “unclean” itself always appears in the Gospels in the context of spirit, a detail that illustrates the NT shift of emphasis from ritual uncleanness to sin and its guilt.<\/p>\n<p>An important episode in the life of the early church came in Acts 10, when God taught the apostle Peter that Gentiles were not unclean in themselves and that Peter was obliged to receive them. The result was Cornelius’s conversion.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ assertion that uncleanness originates in the heart bore fruit in the apostle Paul’s doctrine of Christian freedom. Paul, a Pharisee who could say of himself that he had never broken an external law, came to see that nothing is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14-20). Throughout his epistles, cleanness is the result of obedience of the heart flowing from regeneration; it is based on the cleansing power of the Atonement (see Rom 6:19; 1 Thes 2:3-4, where uncleanness is strictly moral).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s atonement was the final cleansing agent for sin and its moral results (Heb 9:14, 22; 1 Jn 1:7), doing in reality what the blood of bulls and goats only typified. Thus those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb (Rv 7:14) are seen as wearing clean white robes (15:6; 19:8-14). His blood, symbolizing the life given and the death died by the Son at the behest of the Father, satisfies the attributes of personal justice of the triune God. Because the personal character of a righteous Father was vindicated, the personal forgiveness of sinners is morally possible. God can be in history only what he is eternally: he is both just and the justifier of believers in Christ (Rom 3:24-26).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Circumcision; Uncircumcision; Offerings and Sacrifices; Law, Biblical Concept of; Dietary Laws.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning<\/h3>\n<p>Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and personal lines—God’s personal nature being expressed in his giving of the law to Moses. The personal and uniquely consistent character of Israel’s Lord made him morally a completely different being from the many gods of pagan cultures. Unlike the Lord, the Baals of the Canaanites were capricious and vicious; nobody expected them to be ethically consistent. Israel’s Lord, on the other hand, could be trusted to keep his word (a verbal communication through his chosen prophets). Nobody, not even the high priest or the king, was above the law, which expressed not only God’s character but also his sovereign will for the individual and the nation. His moral consistency carried over into his miraculous interventions into history to protect his people, to judge them and their enemies, and to redeem humanity itself.<\/p>\n<p>Cleanness as defined in the book of Leviticus, therefore, was always conditioned by the presence of the personal God who gave the law. As the people sought to approach the Lord, they necessarily did so on his terms and therefore within the framework of the cultic ceremonies he had prescribed. Details of the Levitical ceremonies were designed to illustrate the moral implications of the sinner’s approach to God and God’s provision for his people to become morally clean in his sight.<\/p>\n<p>The meaning of the Levitical system was stated clearly in the psalmist’s words: “Who shall ascend the hill of the <span>Lord<\/span>? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully” (Ps 24:3-4, <span>rsv<\/span>). One’s state of cleanness depends not only on external actions but also on an internal relationship with God. As a result, the sinner’s inability to satisfy the moral demands of a holy God leads to his or her complete dependence on God and on God’s provision for satisfying his own demands. That provision was detailed in the law.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Early History<\/p>\n<p>• Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<p>• Purification Rites<\/p>\n<p>• New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"EarlyHistory\">Early History<\/p>\n<h5>Gentile Religious Background<\/h5>\n<p>The gentile conscience was no doubt a strong influence on the development of ethnic notions of clean and unclean. The subjective sense of sin’s uncleanness is universally encountered in one form or another in the literature of every great religion, whatever explanation is given for it. Many religions have rites of purification based on water and washings. The Hebrews’ ritual avoidance of certain objects, some because of their holiness and others because of their unholiness, finds an analogy in the taboos of many primitive religions, including some of those with which the early Hebrews came into contact.<\/p>\n<p>The similarities between the Hebrew and other ancient religions are easily established by superficial comparison. It would be surprising if there were none. Those differences that give biblical religion its distinctive character, however, must be accounted for.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LeviticalPrescriptions\">Levitical Prescriptions<\/p>\n<h5>Ceremonial and Moral Law<\/h5>\n<p>The relationship between the external ceremonial details of the Mosaic law and the internally directed moral requirements of such parts of it as the Ten Commandments is one of the fundamental issues of OT theology. It is possible to demonstrate that, throughout the OT, uncleanness and sin are virtually synonymous. In many passages sin is described as uncleanness (e.g., Lv 16:16, 30; the ordeal of the bitter water in Nm 5:11-28; Zec 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between ceremonial and moral cleanness can be illustrated from passages mentioning clean hands on the one hand (2 Sm 22:21; Jb 17:9; 22:30) and a clean heart on the other (Pss 24:4; 51:10; 73:13; Prv 20:9). The prophet Isaiah felt convicted of “unclean lips” when he was in God’s presence; a purifying coal, perhaps representing forgiveness and atonement, cleansed him (Is 6:5-7). In many passages cleanness represents innocence before God (Jb 11:4; 33:9; Ps 51:7-10; Prv 20:9), and uncleanness is said to come from sin (Ps 51:2; Is 1:16; 64:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Causes of Uncleanness<\/h5>\n<p>From the Mosaic law a number of causes of uncleanness can be derived.<\/p>\n<p>1. Some foods were not to be eaten. Various laws concerning animals make a “distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten” (Lv 11:47, <span>rsv<\/span>). Permitted food was what was acceptable to God (see also Dt 14:3-21; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<li>2. Diseases, especially leprosy, produced an unclean state (Lv 13–14). The story of Naaman refers to leprous defilement (2 Kgs 5:1-14). The Gospels refer often to lepers (e.g., Mt 8:1-4; 10:8; 11:5; Lk 4:27). Many swellings, sores, and rashes were included under that heading, including Hansen’s disease (modern leprosy). The defilement of disease included all things touched by a diseased person (Lv 14:33-57).<\/li>\n<li>3. Bodily discharges were unclean, and contact with them defiled a person for various periods of time. Emission of semen produced uncleanness until the evening, whether in intercourse (Lv 15:16-18) or inadvertently during the night (Dt 23:10). An unnatural discharge, since it usually indicated disease, made a person unclean for seven days after it had ceased (Lv 15:1-15). Menstruation also produced uncleanness lasting seven days after it ceased (Lv 15:19-24; 2 Sm 11:4). Sexual intercourse during that time made both partners unclean (Lv 15:19-24; 20:18). Contact with the spittle of an unclean person produced uncleanness for a day (15:8).<\/li>\n<li>4. Dead bodies, or even parts of them such as bone, caused uncleanness (Nm 19:16). Persons who touched a dead body were unclean for a month, and only after that period could they celebrate their own Passover if they had missed it (9:6-11). The high priest could not even bury his own parents because of his special ritual responsibilities (Lv 21:10-11; cf. Nm 6:6-7; Hg 2:13; Mt 23:27).<\/li>\n<li>5. Idolatry was the greatest source of spiritual defilement. The entire nation of Israel was defiled because of it (Ps 106:38; Is 30:22; Ez 36:25), as were the Gentiles (Jer 43:12). Consequently, contact with Gentiles was thought to produce defilement. The gospel’s universal appeal confronted that conviction (e.g., Jn 4:9; Acts 10:28; cf. Gal 2:11-14). Closely related to the defilement of idolatry was the defilement caused by unclean spirits (Zec 13:2; cf. Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23-27).<\/li>\n<h5>Laws about Objects<\/h5>\n<p>Certain laws illustrate the principle that uncleanness was transmitted much like a contagion. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched, as did dead insects and certain crawling things (Lv 11:29-38). It is interesting that dry grain, running springwater, and water in a cistern were expressly excluded from that law of contamination; perhaps otherwise, starvation would have resulted, dead insects and mice being found in grain and water every day in an agricultural community. Unclean pottery had to be broken, but wooden vessels merely required washing (Lv 15:12). Even uncovered pots in a house where a person had died became unclean (Nm 19:15); everyone who entered the house was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their idolatrous associations, the possessions of pagans were unclean; therefore, booty taken in war had to be cleansed by fire or washing (Nm 31:21-24). Clothing of wool, linen, or leather could contract unclean “leprosy” from diseased persons and had to be tested. If the leprous spots (greenish or reddish patches) spread after a test period, the garments had to be burned (Lv 13:47-59; 14:33-53).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Places<\/h5>\n<p>The land and people of Israel were holy; they could be defiled by the uncleanness of economic oppression or idolatry (Jos 22:17-19; Jer 13:27). Jerusalem was a holy city, but it could be defiled by the sins of its people (Ez 22:2-4; Lam 1:8) or by the blood of its slaughtered inhabitants (Lam 4:15).<\/p>\n<p>The temple could be defiled by unclean persons. It was necessary for Hezekiah to cleanse the temple after Ahaz’s idolatrous worship (2 Chr 29:15-19); Nehemiah had to cleanse the rooms in which Tobiah had been living (Neh 13:9). One of the functions of the Day of Atonement was removal of impurities transferred to the temple by the sins of the Israelites during the past year (Lv 16:16-19; 31-33).<\/p>\n<p>An unclean place received the pieces of a leprous house after its demolition (Lv 14:45). The valley of Hinnom became Jerusalem’s garbage dump in later years, giving rise to the visions of “Gehenna” as a place of eternal punishment in NT eschatology. Since the Israelite camp was a holy place, care was taken to bury human excrement outside its boundaries (Dt 23:12-14). The value of that simple expedient in preventing disease during military excursions can hardly be exaggerated, since plagues were a great scourge of ancient armies.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws about Food<\/h5>\n<p>Certain kinds of animals were unclean and thus could not be eaten (Lv 11; Dt 14:3-21). Animals that died of old age, disease, or injury, or had been wounded by predators, were unclean. Animals that did not both chew the cud and have a cloven hoof were unclean, a definition that included pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits among others. Israelites could eat only those fish that had both fins and scales. Birds of prey and scavengers were unclean. All winged insects were unclean except hopping insects (locusts, grasshoppers, and crickets). A large classification of “crawling things” was prohibited, including worms, lizards, snakes, weasels, and mice. In addition to all those was the ancient prohibition against eating blood (Gn 9:4; Lv 17:14-15; Dt 12:16-23; Acts 15:28-29).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurificationRites\">Purification Rites<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Lapse of Time<\/h5>\n<p>Secondary contamination could often be canceled simply by waiting until the evening (Lv 11:24) or for 7, 14, 40, or 80 days. Dead bodies contaminated what they touched for 7 days (Nm 19:11), as did menstruation (Lv 15:19). When a child was born, the mother’s unclean condition lasted 7 days for a boy and 14 days for a girl. An additional 33 days for a male child and 66 days for a female were required before the mother could touch any sacred thing.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Water<\/h5>\n<p>Contact with unclean things, such as bodily discharges, often required washing of hands and clothing, usually accompanied by the lapse of a day (Lv 15:5-11).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Ceremonial Substances<\/h5>\n<p>Ceremonial substances used in purification rites included the ashes of a red heifer mixed with water (Nm 19:1-10), and (in cases of leprosy) cedarwood, scarlet cloth, hyssop, and blood (Lv 14:2-9). When the altar was used in a purification ceremony, only blood was suitable, since the altar was the place of sacrifice for sin (Lv 16:18-19; Ez 43:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Sacrifice<\/h5>\n<p>Sacrifice was the ultimate source of both ritual and moral purification. All bodily discharges except sexual ones were purified by offerings of doves and pigeons (Lv 15:14-15, 29-30). Childbirth required a lamb and a bird (12:6). Poor people could offer birds in place of an animal (Lv 12:8; 14:21-32; Lk 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>In sacrifice, blood was symbolic of a life given and therefore a death experienced; the uncleanness of disease or sin was thought of as being transferred to the victim, thus removing the uncleanness (Lv 14:7). Sacrificial death, therefore, always had a substitutionary element. Only blood sacrifice could provide the moral cleansing necessary for sin itself; such sacrifice was therefore the basis of all cleansing, including that of disease.<\/p>\n<h5>Purification by Fire<\/h5>\n<p>Some contamination could be removed only by fire, such as contamination of metal pots (Nm 31:22-23). Incest was punishable not only by death but also by burning the bodies (Lv 20:14). Idolatry had to be put away by total destruction of the objects and by burning (Ex 32:20). Cities consecrated to pagan deities were to be burned.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentPerspective\">New Testament Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The NT did not reject the OT concept of clean and unclean, but rather reinterpreted it in a new context. It stressed in particular the moral sense of the concept as well as the identification of uncleanness with sin.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels were written in the context of OT law and its Pharisaic and Sadducean accretions. Jesus obeyed the law but was often at odds with the practical casuistry (system) that had grown up around it. Jesus taught that true defilement came from the sinner’s heart and not from outside contamination (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41). A central element in his teaching was his attack on the ceremonial externalism of the Pharisees. Thus it has been said that Jesus “internalized” the law. It would be more correct to say that he forced attention to the law’s demands on people’s inner lives.<\/p>\n<p>The intrinsic wickedness of demons is underscored by the use of the term “unclean spirit” throughout the Gospels. In fact, the word “unclean” itself always appears in the Gospels in the context of spirit, a detail that illustrates the NT shift of emphasis from ritual uncleanness to sin and its guilt.<\/p>\n<p>An important episode in the life of the early church came in Acts 10, when God taught the apostle Peter that Gentiles were not unclean in themselves and that Peter was obliged to receive them. The result was Cornelius’s conversion.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ assertion that uncleanness originates in the heart bore fruit in the apostle Paul’s doctrine of Christian freedom. Paul, a Pharisee who could say of himself that he had never broken an external law, came to see that nothing is unclean in itself (Rom 14:14-20). Throughout his epistles, cleanness is the result of obedience of the heart flowing from regeneration; it is based on the cleansing power of the Atonement (see Rom 6:19; 1 Thes 2:3-4, where uncleanness is strictly moral).<\/p>\n<p>Christ’s atonement was the final cleansing agent for sin and its moral results (Heb 9:14, 22; 1 Jn 1:7), doing in reality what the blood of bulls and goats only typified. Thus those who are washed in the blood of the Lamb (Rv 7:14) are seen as wearing clean white robes (15:6; 19:8-14). His blood, symbolizing the life given and the death died by the Son at the behest of the Father, satisfies the attributes of personal justice of the triune God. Because the personal character of a righteous Father was vindicated, the personal forgiveness of sinners is morally possible. God can be in history only what he is eternally: he is both just and the justifier of believers in Christ (Rom 3:24-26).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Baptism; Circumcision; Uncircumcision; Offerings and Sacrifices; Law, Biblical Concept of; Dietary Laws.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people. The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and persona...","summary_en":"CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, Regulations Concerning Aspect of Hebrew religion having physical, ceremonial, moral, and spiritual significance. Though these senses of clean and unclean can be distinguished with reference to their contexts, they also merge into and illustrate each other; the physical and ceremonial contexts point to a moral state of the worshiper and to a spiritual relationship between God and his people. The OT vision of a people’s relationship with God is along moral and persona...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39851,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Aaron the Priest","title_en":"Aaron the Priest","content_ro":"<h3>Aaron the Priest<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Because it marked the beginning of the priesthood in Israel, the consecration of Aaron to his office was both instructive and solemn. Nothing was left to human ingenuity; all was precisely commanded of God. There were three ceremonies: washing, clothing, and anointing. When the tabernacle was finished, Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priesthood by washing (to signify purification), clothing with official garments (for beauty and glory), and anointing with oil (to picture the need of empowering by the Spirit; cf. Ex 28; 40:12-15; Lv 8). Aaron thus became the first high priest, serving nearly 40 years. The character of his office was hereditary; this is attested to by his sons’ wearing his garments when they succeeded to the office of high priest (Ex 29:29-30; Nm 20:25-28). Although all priests were anointed with oil, the anointing of Aaron and his successors was distinct from that of the ordinary priests (Ex 29:7; 40:12-15; Lv 8:12). Because the priesthood was inherited, all subsequent priests had to trace their ancestry back to Aaron (Ezr 7:1-5; Lk 1:5). Also, a sharp distinction was always drawn between the family of Aaron and the rest of the Levites (cf. Nm 3:5). Thus, the high priest was designated as the anointed priest in a special sense (Lv 4:3-4; 6:20-22; 21:10).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Because of Aaron’s priestly role, the NT looks upon him as prefiguring the Messiah of Israel. Jesus Christ was appointed High Priest (Heb 3:1-2) in the same way God chose Aaron (Heb 5:1-5), but he was described as a greater high priest than Aaron (Heb 7:11-28).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Aaron the Priest<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Because it marked the beginning of the priesthood in Israel, the consecration of Aaron to his office was both instructive and solemn. Nothing was left to human ingenuity; all was precisely commanded of God. There were three ceremonies: washing, clothing, and anointing. When the tabernacle was finished, Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priesthood by washing (to signify purification), clothing with official garments (for beauty and glory), and anointing with oil (to picture the need of empowering by the Spirit; cf. Ex 28; 40:12-15; Lv 8). Aaron thus became the first high priest, serving nearly 40 years. The character of his office was hereditary; this is attested to by his sons’ wearing his garments when they succeeded to the office of high priest (Ex 29:29-30; Nm 20:25-28). Although all priests were anointed with oil, the anointing of Aaron and his successors was distinct from that of the ordinary priests (Ex 29:7; 40:12-15; Lv 8:12). Because the priesthood was inherited, all subsequent priests had to trace their ancestry back to Aaron (Ezr 7:1-5; Lk 1:5). Also, a sharp distinction was always drawn between the family of Aaron and the rest of the Levites (cf. Nm 3:5). Thus, the high priest was designated as the anointed priest in a special sense (Lv 4:3-4; 6:20-22; 21:10).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Because of Aaron’s priestly role, the NT looks upon him as prefiguring the Messiah of Israel. Jesus Christ was appointed High Priest (Heb 3:1-2) in the same way God chose Aaron (Heb 5:1-5), but he was described as a greater high priest than Aaron (Heb 7:11-28).<\/p>","summary_ro":"Aaron the Priest Because it marked the beginning of the priesthood in Israel, the consecration of Aaron to his office was both instructive and solemn. Nothing was left to human ingenuity; all was precisely commanded of God. There were three ceremonies: washing, clothing, and anointing. When the tabernacle was finished, Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priesthood by washing (to signify purification), clothing with official garments (for beauty and glory), and anointing with oil (to pic...","summary_en":"Aaron the Priest Because it marked the beginning of the priesthood in Israel, the consecration of Aaron to his office was both instructive and solemn. Nothing was left to human ingenuity; all was precisely commanded of God. There were three ceremonies: washing, clothing, and anointing. When the tabernacle was finished, Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priesthood by washing (to signify purification), clothing with official garments (for beauty and glory), and anointing with oil (to pic...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44319,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:10","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","summary_en":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71945,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:10","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","summary_en":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99571,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:10","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","summary_en":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127197,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:10","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:10-15<\/strong> The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the <em>high priest<\/em> because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must <em>never leave his hair uncombed<\/em> or <em>tear his clothing<\/em> in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended from that union would have an unquestioned lineage (21:15).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","summary_en":"21:10-15 The restrictions made on the common priests (21:1-4) applied even more stringently to the high priest because he had to represent all Israel, including the other priests. • The priest must never leave his hair uncombed or tear his clothing in mourning, so that he would always be fit to minister. Although the common priest was permitted to marry a widow, the high priest was allowed to marry only a virgin. This made certain that the future high priest and the common priests descended f...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":60400,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88026,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115652,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143278,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","title_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy","content_ro":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Clean, Unclean, and Holy<\/h3>\n<p>The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things would be unfit for food or offerings and would be “unclean.” A normal land animal would be a vegetarian (see Gen 1:30). A normal human body would have no infections or discharges. A normal piece of cloth would have no mildew on it. If abnormalities occurred, the animal, person, or cloth was unclean.<\/p>\n<p>What is unclean is not sinful but represents a kind of unworthiness that cannot come in contact with what is holy (e.g., Lev 11:44-45). If it is cleansed, it acquires the potential for holiness; it may be dedicated to God and become holy. If what is holy (such as the Sabbath) is treated like something common, God is blasphemed and the thing is profaned. If what is clean becomes unclean, it is defiled and requires cleansing. Some things, such as unclean animals, fish, or birds, remain unclean by definition and can never be cleansed, and, thus, can never become holy.<\/p>\n<p>In the new covenant, things that were previously unclean have been declared clean (Acts 10:15, 28, 45). Yet God is still a God of order (1 Cor 14:33) and wants worship to be conducted in an orderly way (1 Cor 14:40). While God’s grace is abundant to repentant sinners, some things are still repulsive to his holiness and should never be brought into his presence (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira’s offering; see Acts 5:1-11).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 7:2; Lev 11:1–15:33; 21:1-23; 22:3-8; Num 19:1-22; Deut 14:1-21; 21:1-9; Pss 19:9; 24:3-4; 51:7-10; Isa 52:11; Matt 8:2-4; John 13:10-11; Acts 10:9-28; Heb 9:13-15, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","summary_en":"Clean, Unclean, and Holy The rites and regulations establishing cleanness and uncleanness were to distinguish Israel from the surrounding nations. To understand a rationale behind these regulations, one suggestion has been that unclean things are associated with death or the ground (see, e.g., Lev 21:1, 11; 22:8). Recent studies, however, suggest the principle of “normalcy.” God is a God of order. Things that are normal in God’s order are called “clean” and are “permitted.” Abnormal things wo...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":7482,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Consecration*","title_en":"Consecration*","content_ro":"<h3>CONSECRATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Separation of persons, utensils, buildings, or places from everyday secular uses for exclusive dedication to holy or sacred use. In the Bible consecration was demonstrated by an appropriate rite or vow. Hebrew expressions imply “separation” (Ex 13:2; Lv 8:10-12; Dt 15:19), “dedication” (Lv 21:12; Nm 6:9), or “ordination” (lit. “filling the hand,” Ex 28:41; 1 Kgs 13:33). NT references are fewer, but they frequently connote the idea of holiness (Jn 10:36; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Tm 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>In church usage, especially among hierarchical denominations, the term describes solemn rites that establish a bishop. It is also used to describe dedication of shrines, reliquaries, cathedrals, elements of the Mass, or buildings set aside for ecclesiastical functions.<\/p>\n<p>Protestant teaching stresses the priesthood of every believer. Thus all Christians are “saints” (from the same root word as “consecration”), that is, devoted to God for life. In Roman Catholic doctrine the church consecrates (canonizes) great Christians as saints after they have died.<\/p>\n<p>Consecration is significant in relation both to God and to the world. The apostle Paul spells out the term’s meaning in Romans 12:1-2, stressing that consecration involves a living sacrifice to God. Its importance in relation to people and things is a basic theme of the apostle Peter’s first letter. In everyday life each Christian is meant to live out a “holy” and “royal” priesthood for God’s glory (1 Pt 2:9). Christians consider the consecration of one’s own personality by the work of the Holy Spirit to be an important mark of spiritual maturity.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CONSECRATION*<\/h3>\n<p>Separation of persons, utensils, buildings, or places from everyday secular uses for exclusive dedication to holy or sacred use. In the Bible consecration was demonstrated by an appropriate rite or vow. Hebrew expressions imply “separation” (Ex 13:2; Lv 8:10-12; Dt 15:19), “dedication” (Lv 21:12; Nm 6:9), or “ordination” (lit. “filling the hand,” Ex 28:41; 1 Kgs 13:33). NT references are fewer, but they frequently connote the idea of holiness (Jn 10:36; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Tm 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>In church usage, especially among hierarchical denominations, the term describes solemn rites that establish a bishop. It is also used to describe dedication of shrines, reliquaries, cathedrals, elements of the Mass, or buildings set aside for ecclesiastical functions.<\/p>\n<p>Protestant teaching stresses the priesthood of every believer. Thus all Christians are “saints” (from the same root word as “consecration”), that is, devoted to God for life. In Roman Catholic doctrine the church consecrates (canonizes) great Christians as saints after they have died.<\/p>\n<p>Consecration is significant in relation both to God and to the world. The apostle Paul spells out the term’s meaning in Romans 12:1-2, stressing that consecration involves a living sacrifice to God. Its importance in relation to people and things is a basic theme of the apostle Peter’s first letter. In everyday life each Christian is meant to live out a “holy” and “royal” priesthood for God’s glory (1 Pt 2:9). Christians consider the consecration of one’s own personality by the work of the Holy Spirit to be an important mark of spiritual maturity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CONSECRATION* Separation of persons, utensils, buildings, or places from everyday secular uses for exclusive dedication to holy or sacred use. In the Bible consecration was demonstrated by an appropriate rite or vow. Hebrew expressions imply “separation” (Ex 13:2; Lv 8:10-12; Dt 15:19), “dedication” (Lv 21:12; Nm 6:9), or “ordination” (lit. “filling the hand,” Ex 28:41; 1 Kgs 13:33). NT references are fewer, but they frequently connote the idea of holiness (Jn 10:36; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Tm 4:5). In...","summary_en":"CONSECRATION* Separation of persons, utensils, buildings, or places from everyday secular uses for exclusive dedication to holy or sacred use. In the Bible consecration was demonstrated by an appropriate rite or vow. Hebrew expressions imply “separation” (Ex 13:2; Lv 8:10-12; Dt 15:19), “dedication” (Lv 21:12; Nm 6:9), or “ordination” (lit. “filling the hand,” Ex 28:41; 1 Kgs 13:33). NT references are fewer, but they frequently connote the idea of holiness (Jn 10:36; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Tm 4:5). In...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":23807,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Maccabean","title_en":"Period*, Maccabean","content_ro":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","summary_en":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":31315,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":9209,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Deformity","title_en":"Deformity","content_ro":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","summary_en":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":5223,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Blindness","title_en":"Blindness","content_ro":"<h3>BLINDNESS<\/h3>\n<p>Condition of lacking the ability to see. Physical blindness was common in the ancient Near East and is still prevalent among the poor and tribal peoples lacking the benefits of modern medicine.<\/p>\n<p>Medical causes of blindness are not specified in the Bible, but poor personal hygiene and unsanitary living conditions were undoubtedly contributing factors. Newborn babies were especially susceptible. Much blindness from birth (Jn 9:1-3) was probably gonorrhea of the eyes. In the birth process germs from the mother passed to the eyes of the infant, where they found an ideal medium for growth. Within three days inflammation, pus and swelling would be evident. In such cases, primitive treatment could not prevent some permanent or even total damage to the eye. Modern medical practice treats all newborn babies with antiseptic eyedrops; but such treatment is not always available to the poor, or is rejected by them in parts of the Middle East today. Babies and young children have also been threatened by infectious ophthalmia. Carried by flies, that disease causes heavy crusting, droopy eyelids, loss of eyelashes, and eventually clouding of the cornea, often leading to total blindness. In parts of the world one may still see a mother (because of folk superstition) permitting flies to swarm continuously on her baby’s face even as she holds the infant in her lap. Blindness among adults might be due to side effects from illnesses such as malaria, long exposure to sandstorms and sun glare in the desert, accidents, punishment (as with Samson, Jgs 16:21), or old age (Gn 27:1; 1 Sm 4:15; 1 Kgs 14:4).<\/p>\n<p>The OT demanded special consideration for the blind (Lv 19:14) and imposed punishment for misleading a blind person (Dt 27:18). A blind man, considered defective, was not permitted to serve as a priest (Lv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ healing ministry brought sight to the blind in fulfillment of prophecy (Lk 4:18). His ability to restore vision was one of the proofs given to John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah (Mt 11:5). Jesus healed two blind men in Galilee (9:27-30), one blind man in Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-26), a man blind from birth in Jerusalem (Jn 9), and a blind beggar named Bartimaeus and his friend at Jericho (Mk 10:46-52; cf. Mt 20:30-34; Lk 18:35-43). At times Jesus commanded immediate restoration (Mk 10:52). On other occasions he used “means” such as clay and water (Jn 9:6-11) or his own saliva (Mk 8:23). The apostle Paul was blinded at his conversion and received a miraculous cure in the presence of Ananias (Acts 9:1-9, 18). Paul later afflicted a sorcerer, Elymas, with temporary blindness for opposing his ministry on the island of Cyprus (13:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Medicine and Medical Practice; Disease.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BLINDNESS<\/h3>\n<p>Condition of lacking the ability to see. Physical blindness was common in the ancient Near East and is still prevalent among the poor and tribal peoples lacking the benefits of modern medicine.<\/p>\n<p>Medical causes of blindness are not specified in the Bible, but poor personal hygiene and unsanitary living conditions were undoubtedly contributing factors. Newborn babies were especially susceptible. Much blindness from birth (Jn 9:1-3) was probably gonorrhea of the eyes. In the birth process germs from the mother passed to the eyes of the infant, where they found an ideal medium for growth. Within three days inflammation, pus and swelling would be evident. In such cases, primitive treatment could not prevent some permanent or even total damage to the eye. Modern medical practice treats all newborn babies with antiseptic eyedrops; but such treatment is not always available to the poor, or is rejected by them in parts of the Middle East today. Babies and young children have also been threatened by infectious ophthalmia. Carried by flies, that disease causes heavy crusting, droopy eyelids, loss of eyelashes, and eventually clouding of the cornea, often leading to total blindness. In parts of the world one may still see a mother (because of folk superstition) permitting flies to swarm continuously on her baby’s face even as she holds the infant in her lap. Blindness among adults might be due to side effects from illnesses such as malaria, long exposure to sandstorms and sun glare in the desert, accidents, punishment (as with Samson, Jgs 16:21), or old age (Gn 27:1; 1 Sm 4:15; 1 Kgs 14:4).<\/p>\n<p>The OT demanded special consideration for the blind (Lv 19:14) and imposed punishment for misleading a blind person (Dt 27:18). A blind man, considered defective, was not permitted to serve as a priest (Lv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus’ healing ministry brought sight to the blind in fulfillment of prophecy (Lk 4:18). His ability to restore vision was one of the proofs given to John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah (Mt 11:5). Jesus healed two blind men in Galilee (9:27-30), one blind man in Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-26), a man blind from birth in Jerusalem (Jn 9), and a blind beggar named Bartimaeus and his friend at Jericho (Mk 10:46-52; cf. Mt 20:30-34; Lk 18:35-43). At times Jesus commanded immediate restoration (Mk 10:52). On other occasions he used “means” such as clay and water (Jn 9:6-11) or his own saliva (Mk 8:23). The apostle Paul was blinded at his conversion and received a miraculous cure in the presence of Ananias (Acts 9:1-9, 18). Paul later afflicted a sorcerer, Elymas, with temporary blindness for opposing his ministry on the island of Cyprus (13:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Medicine and Medical Practice; Disease.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BLINDNESS Condition of lacking the ability to see. Physical blindness was common in the ancient Near East and is still prevalent among the poor and tribal peoples lacking the benefits of modern medicine. Medical causes of blindness are not specified in the Bible, but poor personal hygiene and unsanitary living conditions were undoubtedly contributing factors. Newborn babies were especially susceptible. Much blindness from birth (Jn 9:1-3) was probably gonorrhea of the eyes. In the birth proce...","summary_en":"BLINDNESS Condition of lacking the ability to see. Physical blindness was common in the ancient Near East and is still prevalent among the poor and tribal peoples lacking the benefits of modern medicine. Medical causes of blindness are not specified in the Bible, but poor personal hygiene and unsanitary living conditions were undoubtedly contributing factors. Newborn babies were especially susceptible. Much blindness from birth (Jn 9:1-3) was probably gonorrhea of the eyes. In the birth proce...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9210,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Deformity","title_en":"Deformity","content_ro":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEFORMITY<\/h3>\n<p>Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The deformity of the “flat nose” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “disfigurement” (<span>niv<\/span>) in Leviticus 21:18 does not refer to a normal variant, but to a severely diseased nose. There are a large number of genetic syndromes and inherited diseases that feature very deformed noses. Likewise, the acquired infectious diseases of syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy can cause destruction of the bone and cartilage support of the nose. With the support gone, the skin of the nose sinks inward. This is referred to today as a “saddle-shaped” deformity of the nose.<\/p>\n<p>Both the OT and the NT describe an instance where a man has a “withered” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “shriveled” (<span>niv<\/span>) arm or hand. Such a defect occurs when the nerves supplying an extremity are damaged and the muscles atrophy. An injury from a sword striking an arm can cause this (Zec 11:17). From the NT we learn that Jesus had the power to instantly heal a man with a chronically paralyzed hand (Mt 12:10; Mk 3:1; Lk 6:6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","summary_en":"DEFORMITY Any obvious physical abnormality. In the OT sacrificial system both the animal to be sacrificed (Lv 1:3; 4:3) and the priest who performed the sacrifice (ch 21) had to be perfect physical specimens, without defect or blemish. By being perfect, they are both OT types of Christ. Of the 11 defects that would exclude a man from becoming a priest (Lv 21:17-20), seven are in the musculoskeletal system, two are in the eye, one is of the skin, and one is in the reproductive system. The defo...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":8155,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Crookbackt*","title_en":"Crookbackt*","content_ro":"<h3>CROOKBACKT*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV reading for hunchback in Leviticus 21:20. <em>See<\/em> Deformity.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CROOKBACKT*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV reading for hunchback in Leviticus 21:20. <em>See<\/em> Deformity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CROOKBACKT* KJV reading for hunchback in Leviticus 21:20. See Deformity.","summary_en":"CROOKBACKT* KJV reading for hunchback in Leviticus 21:20. See Deformity.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34160,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Scurvy","title_en":"Scurvy","content_ro":"<h3>SCURVY<\/h3>\n<p>Term used three times in the Bible (Lv 21:20 and 22:22, <span>kjv<\/span>; Dt 28:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). In none of the instances does it refer to the modern disease by the same name, which results from severe vitamin C deficiency. In the Leviticus passages, “scurvy” is found in the sequence “scurvy or scabbed.” This phrase is translated “oozing sores or scabs on his skin” in the <span>nlt<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SCURVY<\/h3>\n<p>Term used three times in the Bible (Lv 21:20 and 22:22, <span>kjv<\/span>; Dt 28:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). In none of the instances does it refer to the modern disease by the same name, which results from severe vitamin C deficiency. In the Leviticus passages, “scurvy” is found in the sequence “scurvy or scabbed.” This phrase is translated “oozing sores or scabs on his skin” in the <span>nlt<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SCURVY Term used three times in the Bible (Lv 21:20 and 22:22, kjv; Dt 28:27, nlt). In none of the instances does it refer to the modern disease by the same name, which results from severe vitamin C deficiency. In the Leviticus passages, “scurvy” is found in the sequence “scurvy or scabbed.” This phrase is translated “oozing sores or scabs on his skin” in the nlt. See Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.","summary_en":"SCURVY Term used three times in the Bible (Lv 21:20 and 22:22, kjv; Dt 28:27, nlt). In none of the instances does it refer to the modern disease by the same name, which results from severe vitamin C deficiency. In the Leviticus passages, “scurvy” is found in the sequence “scurvy or scabbed.” This phrase is translated “oozing sores or scabs on his skin” in the nlt. See Disease; Medicine and Medical Practice.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":44320,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:22","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","summary_en":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71946,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:22","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","summary_en":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99572,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:22","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","summary_en":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127198,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Leviticul 21:22","title_en":"Study Note: Leviticul 21:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>21:22<\/strong> <em>he may eat:<\/em> Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","summary_en":"21:22 he may eat: Although a mutilation or defect (see 21:18-20) disqualified a descendant of Aaron from representing the people, it did not compromise his priestly lineage. He was eligible to eat the priest’s share of the offerings (see 2:3, 10; 6:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":22780,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Leviticul 21
— 24 versete
Leviticul 21
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse